Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 24845-24857 [2012-8988]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of today’s Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on June 25, 2012 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 29, 2012. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES A. General Requirements Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:14 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 226001 • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801. C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 25, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 24845 published in the proposed rules section of today’s Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action to remove the Transco Station 175 operating permit from the Virginia SIP may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone. Dated: April 12, 2012. W.C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart VV—Virginia 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing the entry for Transcontinental Pipeline Station 175. ■ [FR Doc. 2012–9973 Filed 4–25–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0870; FRL–9658–9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the South Dakota State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing regional haze submitted by the State of South Dakota on January 21, 2011, along with an amendment submitted on September 19, 2011. EPA has determined that the plan submitted by South Dakota satisfies the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and our rules that require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing man-made impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM 26APR1 24846 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES wide geographic area (also referred to as the ‘‘Regional Haze program’’). DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2012. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0870. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Fallon, Air Program, Mailcode 8P–AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–6281, or fallon.gail@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Definitions For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows: • The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise. • The initials BACT mean or refer to best available control technology. • The initials BART mean or refer to best available retrofit technology. • The initials CAMD mean or refer to EPA’s Clean Air Markets Database. • The initials CO2 mean or refer to carbon dioxide. • The initials DENR mean or refer to the South Dakota Department of Natural Resources. • The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. • The initials FGD or scrubber mean or refer to flue gas desulfurization. • The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan. • The initials FLM mean or refer to Federal Land Manager. • The initials LNB mean or refer to low NOX burners. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:14 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 226001 • The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides. • The initials NPCA mean or refer to the National Parks Conservation Association. • The initials NPS mean or refer to the National Park Service. • The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air Quality Standards. • The initials PM mean or refer to particulate matter. • The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers or fine particulate matter. • The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers or fine particulate matter. • The initials PSD mean or refer to prevention of significant deterioration. • The initials RBLC mean or refer to the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse. • The initials RP mean or refer to reasonable progress. • The initials RPG mean or refer to reasonable progress goal. • The initials SCR mean or refer to selective catalytic reduction. • The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan. • The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic reduction. • The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide. • The words South Dakota and State mean the State of South Dakota unless the context indicates otherwise. • The initials URP mean or refer to uniform rate of progress. Table of Contents I. Background II. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA’s Responses A. General Comments on the Big Stone I BART Determination B. Comments on the Big Stone I SO2 BART Determination C. Comments on the Big Stone I NOX BART Determination D. Comments on Big Stone I PM BART Determination E. Startup, Shutdown and Enforceability Comments F. Modeling Comments G. GCC Dacotah Cement Comments H. General Comments III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background We signed our notice of proposed rulemaking on November 29, 2011, and it was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2011. In that notice, we proposed approval of the State of South Dakota’s Regional Haze SIP for the first implementation period (through 2018). 76 FR 76646. A detailed explanation of PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 the CAA’s visibility requirements and the Regional Haze Rule as it applies to South Dakota was provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking and will not be restated here. EPA’s rationale for proposing approval of the South Dakota SIP revision was described in detail in the proposal, and is further described in this final rulemaking. South Dakota has one source, Big Stone I Unit 1 (Big Stone I), which is subject to the best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements.1 Big Stone I is a coal-fired power plant. The State has identified various BART requirements including emission limits and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting for Big Stone I. In South Dakota’s Administrative Rules, Chapter 74:36:21 notes these requirements apply to a BART-eligible source. Regardless of the generic language, wherever a requirement is identified for a BARTeligible source in Chapter 74:36:21, South Dakota intended for the provisions of the state rule to apply to Big Stone I. II. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA’s Responses This action addresses comments on the South Dakota Regional Haze SIP. The publication of EPA’s proposed rule on December 8, 2011 initiated a 60-day public comment period that ended on February 6, 2012. During the public comment period we received written comments from the State of South Dakota, CREDO Action, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), the Sierra Club, and the National Park Service (NPS). We have reviewed the comments and provided our responses below. Full copies of the comment letters are available in the docket for this rulemaking. A. General Comments on the Big Stone I BART Determination Comment: One commenter stated that South Dakota is not excused from following a reasonable analysis in evaluating BART and setting BART emission limits because Big Stone I has a generating capacity less than 750 MW. South Dakota is still obligated to comply with BART as defined at 40 CFR 51.301 and to include controls with the top level of pollutant removal efficiency in evaluating the ‘‘best system of continuous emission reduction.’’ Because South Dakota did not consider the capabilities of various pollution controls in its BART analysis for Big Stone I, its cost impact analysis is skewed in favor of low-cost equipment, and does not evaluate cost 1 See E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM SIP Section 6 for South Dakota’s analysis. 26APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES impacts in terms of pollution reduced. The State must consider varying levels of pollution control efficiency in its Big Stone BART analyses. Response: We agree with the commenter that the Regional Haze Rule requires states to consider the most stringent level of control. However, we disagree with the statements that South Dakota’s BART analysis is skewed in favor of low-cost equipment for Big Stone I, and that the analysis does not evaluate cost impacts in terms of pollution reduced. South Dakota did describe the range of control efficiencies possible for the various technically feasible control options in its BART determinations. While we acknowledge that South Dakota did not select the highest control efficiency option in every case (e.g., South Dakota selected semi-dry instead of wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD or ‘‘scrubber’’ controls) for SO2 control), we find the State was reasonable in its selection of controls considering the five statutory factors and did not unreasonably reject any control options based on cost as further explained in our responses to other comments in this action. B. Comments on the Big Stone I SO2 BART Determination Comment: Two commenters stated that the SO2 emission limit for Big Stone I is too high as a result of the baseline emission rate used in the analysis. The commenters stated that Otter Tail Power Company, the operator of Big Stone, and the State both incorrectly assumed an uncontrolled SO2 emission rate of 0.86 lb/MMBtu for the Big Stone I BART determination. Otter Tail claimed this rate was the highest 24-hour average rate of SO2 emitted by Big Stone I during 2001–2003. While the BART Guidelines 2 require use of the highest daily emissions in the visibility modeling analysis, that is not an appropriate starting point for setting a BART emission limit. The Sierra Club believed that this rate should have instead been based on the highest 30day average uncontrolled SO2 emission rate, because BART emission limits apply on a 30-day average basis. The Sierra Club recommended a baseline emission rate of 0.70 lb/MMBtu, which is the maximum annual average SO2 emission rate at Big Stone I over the last ten years, according to EPA’s Clean Air Markets Database (CAMD), or at the very least recommends the highest 30-day average uncontrolled SO2 emission rate. The NPCA stated that it is unclear where the 0.86 lb/MMBtu baseline originates. The NPCA stated that the 2 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:14 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 226001 highest 30-day rolling period for SO2 during the baseline period (2001–2003) was 0.82 lbs/MMBtu, and that no monthly value was higher than 0.81 lbs/ MMBtu through 2010. The NPCA also noted that the baseline assumes 85% operations, while the baseline period operations averaged 91%, and averaged 92% from 2003– 2010.3 Response: The BART Guidelines describe the process for calculating the average cost effectiveness of a control strategy.4 As part of this calculation, baseline annual emissions must be calculated, and section IV.D.4.c of the BART Guidelines describes the calculation of baseline emissions. The BART Guidelines state, ‘‘1. The baseline emissions rate should represent a realistic depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source. In general, for the existing sources subject to BART, you will estimate the anticipated annual emissions based upon actual emissions from a baseline period. 2. When you project that future operating parameters (e.g., limited hours of operation materials or product mix or type) will differ from past practice, and if this projection has a deciding effect in the BART determination, then you must make these parameters or assumptions into enforceable limitations. In the absence of enforceable limitations, you calculate baseline emissions based upon continuation of past practice.’’ 5 States have some flexibility in determining baseline emissions but should develop a ‘‘realistic depiction of anticipated annual emissions.’’ While the use of the highest 24-hour emission rate to estimate annual emissions would not likely result in a realistic estimate of annual emissions, had the State relied on the highest 30-day rolling average value, it is unlikely that it would have arrived at a different conclusion regarding BART. First, the baseline emissions that the State relied on in its calculation of average cost result in lower estimates of average cost than would have resulted from using the approach suggest by the commenter. In addition, the primary basis for the State’s BART determination was the visibility benefits that were based on the 24-hour maximum emissions rates. Moreover, BART emission limits, which apply at all times, including during startup and shutdown must allow an adequate margin for compliance. In addition, the State assumed baseline emissions of 18,000 tons per year for its BART analysis. By contrast, emissions data in CAMD shows that the 3 The commenter cited EPA’s CAMD for hours of operation at Big Stone I. 4 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.D.4.c. 5 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.D.4.d. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 24847 emissions between 2001 and 2003 were 12,540 tons per year. Therefore, we find the State did not underestimate the baseline emissions in its BART analysis. Based on our review of all the information, we find that South Dakota acted reasonably in establishing the SO2 BART emission limit for Big Stone. Comment: One commenter stated that the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) incorrectly assumed 95% SO2 control efficiency for wet FGD, which can actually achieve as high as 99% control efficiency. The commenter gave several examples of wet scrubbers that have achieved up to 99% removal efficiency, and included cost estimates for certain technologies to argue that the costs for some of these systems ‘‘are well within the range EPA normally considers cost effective’’ in best available control technology (BACT) analyses. In its evaluation of a wet scrubber for BART, the Big Stone I BART Analysis should have evaluated these levels of control. The commenter also stated that the State incorrectly assumed 90% SO2 control with a dry scrubber at Big Stone I, and therefore, proposed an emission limit of 0.09 lb/MMBtu which was too high. Using the Sierra Club’s previously proposed baseline emission rate of 0.70 lb/MMBtu, the BART emission limit with a 90% efficient dry scrubber should be 0.07 lb/MMBtu at most. Additionally, other facilities are currently subject to higher removal efficiency requirements (up to 95%) with dry scrubbers, and corresponding lower SO2 BACT limits than the 0.09 lb/ MMBtu proposed by the State. Another commenter stated that more accurate reflections of the maximum capabilities of wet and dry scrubbers would cut remaining emissions significantly (75% and 50%, respectively), and requests that EPA adjust the final emission limits appropriately. This commenter also quoted the BART Guidelines; ‘‘the list [of available technologies] is complete if it includes the maximum level of control each technology is capable of achieving.’’ Response: We agree that, in some cases, wet and dry scrubbers can achieve greater emission reductions than those assumed by South Dakota. However, when the sulfur content of the coal is low, a lower control efficiency is anticipated. Due to the very low sulfur content of the coal burned at Big Stone I, on average 0.57%, it is unlikely that the high control efficiencies cited by the E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM 26APR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 24848 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations commenter could be achieved.6 South Dakota also provided explanatory information in its response to comments in Appendix E of the SIP that it considered SO2 inlet concentrations in its estimation of possible control efficiencies. In addition, BART emission limits, which apply at all times, including during startup and shutdown must allow an adequate margin for compliance. Therefore, with regard to the proposed emission limits for dry scrubbers at Big Stone I, we find that South Dakota’s limit of 0.09 lb/MMBtu is reasonable for dry scrubbers at the facility, and we are approving it. Comment: One commenter stated that the choice of semi-dry FGD over wet FGD was largely based on modeling results about which EPA noted; ‘‘It is not clear why the model predicted this result; it may relate to stack parameters.’’ 76 FR 76656. The commenter stated that EPA should not rely on ‘‘unreliable, unexplained, or not logical’’ modeling results. Response: We disagree that the model results, upon which the State and EPA relied for this action, are ‘‘unreliable, unexplained, or not logical.’’ The CALPUFF modeling protocol used for the South Dakota Regional Haze SIP conforms to the BART Guidelines, and we received no information to the contrary aside from the general comment directly above. We also note that the stack parameters used in the model differ for the two options. Wet FGD results in a cooler plume with less velocity and thermal buoyancy than dry FGD. This is likely to have affected the model predictions. Comment: One commenter stated that South Dakota’s cost effectiveness calculation of a wet scrubber, $1,699/ ton at an SO2 emission rate of 0.043 lb/ MMBtu, is reasonable when compared to other BART determinations at similar facilities.7 South Dakota, therefore, lacks justification to discount installation of a wet scrubber based on costs. Response: Neither EPA nor South Dakota discounted the installation of a wet scrubber based on costs. As stated in the proposal, ‘‘the State deemed the average cost effectiveness reasonable for the two remaining control options, semi-dry and wet FGD.’’ 76 FR 76656. Comment: One commenter noted Otter Tail’s BART submittal based its costs on the CUE Cost model rather than EPA’s Control Cost Manual, which 6 Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Utility Plants, 1999 Tables, DOE/EIA–091(99), June 2000, Table 21. 7 Commenter referenced an NPS spreadsheet with cost information on BART determinations. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:14 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 226001 contradicts the BART Guidelines and makes comparison with other cost effectiveness values difficult. Response: As we commented to South Dakota previously,8 while we are satisfied with the BART conclusions, in general we do not recommend relying on the CUE Cost model. We agree with the commenter that according to the BART Guidelines, in order to maintain and improve consistency, cost estimates should be based on the Control Cost Manual. Since South Dakota determined all control options in its BART analysis were cost effective, and it relied primarily on visibility benefits in its final BART determinations, the use of the CUE Cost model did not affect the final result. Comment: One commenter stated that DENR and Otter Tail failed to adequately evaluate the environmental benefits of a wet scrubber as opposed to a dry scrubber. First, because wet scrubbers are much more efficient at controlling SO2, they will be needed to work in conjunction with likely ‘‘mandated’’ future carbon dioxide (CO2) emission controls, which require SO2 removal efficiency at 98–99%. Second, wet scrubbers are much more effective than dry scrubbers at controlling emissions of hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride, and ‘‘provide significant removal of arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and mercury from flue gas.’’ 9 Third, decreases in SO2 emissions translate to lower PM2.5 concentrations because of the decrease in sulfate formation. Decrease in sulfate can also prevent damage to certain water bodies and wetlands. Another commenter also stated that EPA did not adequately take into account the additional environmental benefits from use of a wet scrubber and the low energy use associated with some newer models, and asks EPA to revisit this aspect of the technology section. Response: We took into account the State’s consideration of environmental impacts when reviewing the Big Stone I SO2 BART determination, as required by the BART Guidelines and evidenced in our proposal. 76 FR 76656. The CAA requires consideration of energy and non-air quality environmental impacts; the commenter’s concerns relate primarily to air quality issues. The State did identify non-air quality environmental impacts in Section 6 of the SIP. South Dakota noted that the dry 8 March 12, 2010 letter from EPA Region 8, Callie Videtich to DENR, Brian Gustafson, re: EPA Region 8 Comments on January 15, 2010 Draft Regional Haze SIP (FLM Consultation Version). 9 Commenter cited https://www.icac.com/i4a/ pages/index.cfm?pageid=3401 for quote. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 scrubber would be installed upstream of the existing baghouse, resulting in some negligible additional material being collected in the baghouse. In addition, the energy issue raised by the commenter related to wet versus dry scrubbing is addressed in the SIP in Table 6–8 where the State notes that the wet scrubber control option uses more energy than the dry scrubber option, 9,500 kW versus 3,325 kW. We also note that Sierra Club’s suggestion of future mandates for CO2 emission controls is speculative and that it is premature for us to consider in this action. Accordingly, our consideration of environmental impacts was sufficient. C. Comments on the Big Stone I NOX BART Determination Comment: One commenter stated that it is unclear where the baseline rate of 0.86 lbs/MMBtu for NOX originated, because the thirty-day rolling values for NOX only reached 0.85 lbs/MMBtu during the baseline period. The commenter noted that the thirty-day rolling values for NOX have been at or below 0.71 lbs/MMBtu since 2007 because of the installation of overfire air. The commenter asserted that 0.71 lbs/MMBtu should therefore be the starting point for additional NOX reductions from SCR. The commenter also noted that the baseline assumes 85% operations, while the baseline period operations averaged 91%, and averaged 92% from 2003–2010.10 Response: See our previous response in this action related to the SO2 emission rate as it relates to baseline emissions. Regarding the commenter’s concern related to the hours of operation assumed in the baseline, we note that the State’s approach considerably overestimates the baseline emissions. The State assumed baseline emissions of 18,000 tons per year for its BART analysis. By contrast, emissions data in CAMD shows that the emissions between 2001 and 2003 were 15,780 tons per year. Therefore, we find the State did not underestimate the baseline emissions in its BART analysis. Comment: One commenter stated that the NOX BART analysis at Big Stone I is flawed because it fails to consider the level of control available with SCR, resulting in an inflated NOX emission limit. DENR’s proposed NOX emission rate of 0.10 lb/MMBtu reflects 85.9% NOX control with the installation of SCR based on emission data showing that the highest monthly emission rate of NOX in 2009 was 0.71 lb/MMBtu. SCR systems can achieve 90% + NOX reductions, 10 Commenter cited EPA’s CAMD for hours of operation at Big Stone I. E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM 26APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations meaning an emission limit of .071 lb/ MMBtu is more reflective of SCR capabilities. The commenter also cited recent SCR retrofits which have resulted in emission rates lower than 0.05 lb/ MMBtu being achieved. Response: Because the control efficiency of SCR is dependent on the NOX inlet concentration, it is more appropriate to assess the control effectiveness of SCR relative to the performance rate. Although we acknowledge that other SCR retrofits have resulted in lower NOX emission levels than 0.10 lb/MMBtu, we find that South Dakota’s limit is reasonable using SCR plus separated overfire air at Big Stone I. This is particularly true in light of the need to establish an adequate margin of compliance for BART limits that must apply at all times including startup and shutdown. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES D. Comments on Big Stone I PM BART Determination Comment: One commenter stated that DENR’s proposed particulate matter (PM) BART emission limit of 0.012 lb/ MMBtu is not reflective of the limits achievable by fabric filter baghouses, and is inconsistent with some lower PM limits required as BACT. The commenter cited a permit for a plant in Atlanta, Plant Washington, with a PM limit of 0.010 lb/MMBtu to argue that Big Stone’s PM emission limit should be no higher than this level. Response: As noted in the proposal, the 0.012 lb/MMBtu PM emission limit ‘‘represents a stringent level of control that is consistent with recent Best Available Control Technology determinations for PSD [prevention of significant deterioration] permits.’’ 76 FR 76659. Also, performance test data for the baghouse indicates that the actual emission rate is 0.011 lb/MMBtu. Therefore, we find the emission limit set by South Dakota is commensurate with the actual performance of the control device. Moreover, there is no indication that a more stringent level of control would lead to meaningful visibility benefits. Comment: One commenter asserted that DENR should require a PM continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) rather than the currently proposed annual stack test to ensure continuous compliance with BART limits. If not CEMS, commenter alternatively requested that DENR impose a 10% opacity limit ‘‘reflective of BART,’’ noting that this would ensure continuous compliance with the BART limit and that Big Stone already has continuous opacity monitoring. Commenter noted that other coal plants’ VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:14 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 226001 permits include opacity limits of 10% or less. Response: PM CEMS provides the most robust means of demonstrating continuous compliance with the PM emission limits. However, we disagree that their use is required in this case. We find that the monitoring requirements in the South Dakota Regional Haze SIP are adequate to demonstrate continuous compliance with the PM emission limits. South Dakota noted in response to similar comments it received during its public comment period that the State has the authority to require CEMS as well as a 10% opacity limit, but that based on its case-by-case analysis of the facility it believed an annual stack test was adequate to meet the regional haze requirements. We agree with the State. Comment: One commenter stated that the PM BART limit at Big Stone should be required now because the baghouse has already been installed. Response: Normally, we would agree that the PM BART limit should apply as expeditiously as practical. In this case, South Dakota noted in its response to a similar comment in Appendix E of the SIP that since a dry FGD system must be located upstream of the particulate control device, that demonstrating compliance with the SO2 BART limit affects the compliance demonstration for PM. The commenter does not provide any explanation to refute South Dakota’s response. We find South Dakota’s compliance timeframe is reasonable as noted in Section 6.4 of the SIP for installation and operation of BART as expeditiously as practical, but no later than five years from EPA’s approval of the South Dakota Regional Haze Program. E. Startup, Shutdown and Enforceability Comments Comment: One commenter stated that DENR should not exempt Big Stone from BART emission limits during startup and shutdown. First, BART emission limits must be met on a continuous basis pursuant to CAA section 302(k). Second, startup and shutdown are part of normal operations at facilities like Big Stone, and because these emissions impact visibility and regional haze, ‘‘DENR’s proposed BART limits must include periods of startup and shutdown.’’ Third, permitting authorities have required as stringent and more stringent BACT limits at coalfired boilers without allowing exemptions for startup and shutdown. Further, the commenter stated that Otter Tail did not request exemptions from emission limits for startup and shutdown related to a new facility, Big PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 24849 Stone II, for which it was seeking a permit during a 2008 contested case hearing. Response: As stated in the proposal, all the BART limits (based on lb/ MMBtu, 30-day rolling average) specified in the South Dakota Regional Haze SIP apply at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. The lb/MMBtu limits are more restrictive than the lb/hr limits that are also specified in the SIP, and therefore, as a practical matter, the lb/ MMBtu limits take precedence. Comment: One commenter stated that DENR’s proposed regulation to make the BART requirements from the Regional Haze SIP enforceable (74:36:21:06–09) fails to specify that Big Stone is subject to the regulation’s emission limits. The regulation must specify the source that is subject to the BART emission limits to ensure that those limits are enforceable. Response: We disagree. Though somewhat unique in its omission of the facility name, we find that the State’s regulation provides adequate detail to ensure its applicability and enforceability related to Big Stone I. We are deferring to the State’s constitution and legislative process that favors general laws over special, unit-specific laws. We are basing our approval of South Dakota’s Regional Haze SIP on the conclusion that the regulation does cover Big Stone I. F. Modeling Comments Comment: One commenter stated that both the cumulative visibility impact of a source’s emissions and the cumulative benefit of emission reductions are necessary considerations as part of the fifth step in a BART analysis. The commenter stated that this is particularly important for sources in South Dakota because emissions from these sources cause or contribute to visibility impairment at multiple Class I areas. The commenter supported an argument from an NPS comment letter which states: ‘‘It simply does not make sense to use the same metric to evaluate the effects of reducing emissions from a BART source that impacts only the one Class I area as for a BART source that impacts multiple Class I areas.’’ 11 The commenter provided examples of instances in which consideration of cumulative visibility benefits influenced BART decisions, one being EPA Region 6’s FIP for the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico. The commenter 11 NPS comments on Salt River Project’s proposed determination for Navajo Generating Station, July 24, 2009, according to commenter. E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM 26APR1 24850 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES also stated that FLMs rely on cumulative assessments of visibility impacts and benefits to determine the levels of emission controls that are costeffective and technically feasible. Additionally, the commenter stated that cumulative impact assessments also provide more accurate depictions of costs on a dollars per deciview basis, which is a useful supplement to the $/ton calculation used in BART determinations. Response: The BART Guidelines list the dollars per deciview ratio as an additional cost effectiveness metric that can be employed along with $/ton for use in a BART evaluation. However, EPA does not have guidelines on how the dollars per deciview metric is to be used. South Dakota did include a dollars per deciview metric across multiple Class I areas in its evaluation of BART controls based on the combinations of controls for which Otter Tail conducted visibility modeling.12 The dollars per deciview analysis indicated the control options that reduced visibility impacts to acceptable levels had comparable dollars per deciview results, within approximately 10 percent of each other. While we agree with the commenter that the cumulative visibility impact across multiple Class I areas is a useful metric that can further inform the BART determination, states can choose how they compile this information. We find that South Dakota’s evaluation of visibility impacts is consistent with the BART guidelines and a sufficient basis for choosing control options. G. GCC Dacotah Cement Comments Comment: Several commenters stated that technical feasibility was not the basis for South Dakota’s decision to eliminate SNCR in its 2003 NOX BACT determination for GCC Dacotah Kiln #6. Commenters pointed to the ‘‘Statement of Basis’’ in support of GCC Dacotah’s 2003 PSD permit, in which DENR considered SNCR to be technically feasible for Kiln #6, but rejected SNCR as BACT due to concerns about accidental release of ammonia and ammonia slip. The NPS provided excerpts from its comments on the 2003 PSD permit in support of the NPS’s comments on this action. Response: We are not basing our final approval of South Dakota’s regional haze SIP with regard to GCC Dacotah Kiln #6 on the basis of any general statements about technical feasibility of SNCR. We are basing it in part on analysis and information from South Dakota’s 2003 BACT determination, 12 See SIP Table 6–15. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:14 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 226001 which South Dakota relied on in regard to Kiln #6, and information subsequently provided by South Dakota. In order to clarify the situation and to respond to other comments on Kiln #6, we provide additional detail on the 2003 PSD permit. We explain in response to other comments our assessment of South Dakota’s reliance on the 2003 BACT determination for Kiln #6. On June 23, 1994, Dacotah Cement (the previous owner and operator of the facility) submitted an application to South Dakota DENR for a modification to Kiln #6.13 Based on information in the application, South Dakota agreed that the modification was not major under the PSD program, and the modification was completed. However, South Dakota later determined that, based on the result of subsequent stack tests, the modification should have triggered PSD review. South Dakota entered into a settlement agreement with Dacotah Cement. GCC Dacotah purchased the facility and submitted applications for PSD permits for PM, NOX, and carbon monoxide. In its permit application, GCC Dacotah presented a five-step BACT analysis for NOX controls for Kiln #6. In the first step, GCC Dacotah presented SNCR as an available technology, and, in the second step, did not eliminate SNCR (standing alone) as technically infeasible. Among other control options, the company also presented staged combustion, in the form of an inline, low-NOX calciner with riser duct firing, and low NOX burners (LNBs) with indirect firing, as available and feasible. However, in considering combinations of control technologies, GCC Dacotah stated that SNCR was technically infeasible in combination with the proposed staged combustion system, for reasons including requirements for an injection location with temperatures between 1600 °F and 2000 °F. The company stated that, due to these reasons, use of SNCR with the proposed staged combustion system would have a high probability of ammonia slip and resulting detached plume. In its statement of basis for the draft permit, South Dakota likewise presented SNCR, standing alone, as an available and technically feasible option for Kiln #6. However, South Dakota stated that accidental release of ammonia during handling and storage was an environmental risk. South Dakota also stated that ammonia slip could result in 13 South Dakota DENR, Statement of Basis, PSD Preconstruction Permit (‘‘2003 PSD Permit SOB’’), p. 1 (Apr. 10, 2003). The 2003 permit files are available in the docket for this action. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 increased PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, South Dakota viewed this as a concern in Rapid City. Based on these reasons, South Dakota stated ‘‘SNCR is not considered an appropriate control device for [NOX] in Rapid City.’’ 14 In the statement of basis for the draft permit, South Dakota also considered staged combustion as an option. GCC Dacotah proposed a staged combustion system with a small pre-calciner, with a cost-effectiveness of $3,888 per ton of NOX removed. GCC Dacotah initially did not provide costs for a large precalciner. South Dakota agreed with the cost-effectiveness for the small precalciner. South Dakota also stated that the large pre-calciner would not be economically or physically feasible, as the existing support structure and equipment location would not accommodate it. Based on review of the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC), South Dakota proposed as BACT the controls presented by GCC Dacotah, including the staged combustion system with the small precalciner. As noted by the NPS in its comments on this action, the NPS provided comments on the draft PSD permit, including the rejection of SNCR for Kiln #6. The NPS argued that South Dakota should reconsider its decision to eliminate SNCR, in light of the requirement for SNCR in a permit for a cement kiln at Continental Cement in Missouri. The NPS also argued that the cost-effectiveness of a large pre-calciner should be assessed in order to determine whether it might be BACT. In response to the NPS comments, South Dakota reiterated its concerns with accidental release of ammonia and ammonia slip. In addition, South Dakota noted that the permit for the Continental Cement kiln required the replacement of an existing kiln, thereby reducing NOX and avoiding PSD review. South Dakota also noted that the NOX emissions limit of 8 lbs/ton of clinker for the Continental Cement kiln was higher than the emissions limit for GCC Dacotah Kiln #6 established in the PSD permit. Finally, based on a cost analysis South Dakota requested from GCC Dacotah, South Dakota stated that the cost-effectiveness of the large precalciner would be $5,100 per ton of NOX removed, which South Dakota considered excessive. South Dakota, therefore, finalized its determination that staged combustion with the small pre-calciner was BACT for Kiln #6. On October 11, 2011, South Dakota provided the email included in the docket in response to our questions 14 Id., E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM pp. 23–24. 26APR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations regarding the 2003 BACT determination and why SNCR was eliminated. The email stated that, in 2003, South Dakota determined that SNCR was not technically feasible for use with the controls (including the small precalciner) selected as BACT for Kiln #6. (The email did not state that SNCR standing alone had been considered technically infeasible.) South Dakota explained that it had determined that the small pre-calciner lacked an appropriate location for use of SNCR, and that use of it in the small precalciner would cause ammonia slip. South Dakota stated that the large precalciner ‘‘may’’ have had an appropriate location for use of SNCR; the State also noted, however, that the large precalciner had been considered to have excessive costs. We reiterate that we are basing our final action on information and analyses in the 2003 BACT determination, together with emissions data provided by South Dakota and South Dakota’s statements that, at this facility, sitespecific considerations prevent the effective use of SNCR in Kiln #6 without significant process modifications. We are not basing our final action on any general statement on technical feasibility of SNCR. We provide this response in order to clarify the record. Comment: The NPS disagreed with ‘‘EPA’s and DENR’s reliance on a 2003 * * * PSD permit review for Dacotah Cement Kiln #6 to determine that postcombustion controls were not technically feasible.’’ First, the NPS stated that it is inconsistent for DENR, in analyzing the Pete Lien and Sons lime plant, to review the RBLC to determine whether more stringent postcombustion controls had been permitted since a 2008 PSD decision on that facility, and not review more recent permit requirements after the 2003 PSD decision for Kiln #6. Second, the two commenters questioned EPA’s statement that the 2003 BACT determination for Dacotah’s PSD permit is ‘‘recent.’’ Finally, the NPS cited EPA’s BART Guidelines which state ‘‘all technologies should be considered if available before the close of the State’s public comment period.’’ The NPS stated, and provided documentation in support of its statement, that SNCR application to preheater/precalciner kilns such as Dacotah’s Kiln #6 has evolved from ‘‘questionable’’ to ‘‘well established’’ from the 2003 BACT determination and the close of the State’s first Regional Haze SIP public comment period in 2010. Response: As discussed elsewhere, we are not basing our final action on whether SNCR is available or VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:14 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 226001 technically feasible for Kiln #6. We are basing our final action on information and analyses in the 2003 BACT determination, together with South Dakota’s statements that, at this facility, site-specific considerations prevent the effective use of SNCR in Kiln #6 without significant process modifications. These site-specific considerations have not changed since 2003, and subsequent developments regarding applicability of SNCR to other preheater/precalciner kilns also do not change this. With regard to South Dakota’s fourfactor review of Pete Lien and Sons, it appears that the State’s review of the RBLC was not the sole basis for the State’s decision. The State also modeled baseline visibility impacts of the facility (as it did for GCC Dacotah Kilns #4 and #5 and Ben French). The modeling showed impacts from 0.05 to 0.07 deciviews at Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks. In any case, under the BART guidelines (if used for reasonable progress (RP) determinations), review of the RBLC would be recommended to identify available technologies. As discussed above, in the 2003 PSD permit, the State treated SNCR, standing alone, as available and technically feasible for GCC Dacotah Kiln #6, and did not eliminate SNCR as unavailable based on its review of the RBLC at that time. A present-day review of the RBLC would not change this. Thus, South Dakota’s use of the RBLC in analyzing the Pete Lien and Sons facility does not give any basis for us to change our proposed approval. Similarly, because South Dakota treated SNCR as available in the 2003 BACT determination, the comments relating to the BART guidelines on determining availability and to subsequent application of SNCR to preheater/precalciner kilns do not give us any basis to change our proposed approval. Comment: Two commenters disagreed with the statement in EPA’s proposed action that ‘‘In issuing the PSD permit in 2003 * * * South Dakota found that SNCR was not technically feasible for Kiln 6.’’ Further, these commenters stated that the concerns about ammonia slip are predictable and solvable in this context, and that there is no reason to believe that the accidental release of ammonia slip would be any more of a problem at GCC Dacotah than at the numerous other facilities cited by the commenter successfully using ammonia in the operation of SNCR and SCR. Ammonia slip is typically managed by system design and operating parameters, and it likely should have been applied in the 2003 BACT determination, and there is no reason to delay analysis of SNCR and other feasible technologies PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 24851 until 2018. One commenter stated that the failure to require adequate emission controls lacks legal justification. Response: We disagree with the comments to the extent that they conclude that we must disapprove the South Dakota Regional Haze SIP with respect to GCC Dacotah Kiln #6. As detailed above, in its 2002 PSD permit application, GCC Dacotah presented SNCR both as a stand-alone control option and in combination with the staged combustion system, including the small pre-calciner. While the State’s basis for rejecting SNCR, standing alone, in 2003 may have been solely concerns with accidental release of ammonia and ammonia slip, the information and analyses in the 2003 BACT determination with regard to SNCR in combination with the staged combustion system provide a sufficient basis, viewed today, so that we are not prepared to find that South Dakota was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT determination when considering Kiln #6. In evaluating SNCR now, it must be considered as applied to the existing design, i.e., a staged combustion system, including the small pre-calciner. As represented by South Dakota in its October 11, 2011 email, at this facility site-specific considerations prevent the effective use of SNCR in Kiln #6 without significant process modifications.15 Among the considerations presented by the State is a requirement for a location with temperatures from 1600 ° to 2000 °.16 South Dakota states that the existing design, including the staged combustion system with the small precalciner, does not provide an adequate location for use of SNCR. South Dakota also states that the same system, but with a large pre-calciner, ‘‘may have had an appropriate location.’’ The State notes (as we have mentioned above) that a staged combustion system with a large pre-calciner was rejected in 2003 as BACT due to excessive costs. Based on the above statements regarding appropriate locations for SNCR, emissions data provided by DENR, and the limited information and analyses in the 2003 BACT determination, we note the following.17 15 We note that these considerations were also presented in the 2002 GCC Dacotah PSD permit application, in the portion discussing SNCR in combination with the staged combustion system, including the small pre-calciner. 16 See also US EPA, Alternative Control Techniques Document Update –NOX Emissions from New Cement Kilns, EPA–453/R–07–006, Fig. 8–1 (Nov. 2007). Note that, based on this figure, at 1400 °F, NOX reduction efficiency is at most 10%. 17 The details of these calculations are provided in a memorandum in the docket. E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM 26APR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 24852 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations First, based on the emissions data provided by South Dakota, the existing controls, including the staged combustion system with the small precalciner, achieve approximately 44% reduction of NOX emissions. Second, based on GCC Dacotah’s estimated costs in 2003 for a large pre-calciner, the costeffectiveness of replacing the small precalciner with a large pre-calciner alone would be (in 2011 dollars) $6,164 per ton of NOX removed, not including the costs of removing the small pre-calciner and associated equipment. Based on the emissions data, the incremental costeffectiveness, as compared with the existing controls, would be (in 2011 dollars) $280,246 per ton of NOX removed. Third, based on the above statements by South Dakota regarding appropriate locations for SNCR, the cost effectiveness of replacing the existing small pre-calciner with a large precalciner and installing SNCR would be (in 2011 dollars) $4,348 per ton of NOX removed, again not including the costs of removing the small pre-calciner and associated equipment. Again, based on the emissions data, the incremental cost-effectiveness, as compared with the existing controls, would be (in 2011 dollars) $20,160 per ton of NOX removed. The cost estimates for SNCR are conservative, as we use a control efficiency of 50%. Given these costs, we are not prepared to find that South Dakota was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT determination and not requiring additional NOX controls for Kiln #6. On the comment that a failure to require adequate emission controls lacks legal justification, other than issues we have responded to elsewhere, the commenter did not provide sufficient detail of any deficiency in our action. Comment: The NPS stated that SNCR is a feasible option for cement kilns. The NPS cited the BART Guidelines explanations of ‘‘available’’ and ‘‘applicable’’ technology, a report by the Portland Cement Association, as well as other EPA documents to argue that SNCR has become routinely applied to preheater/precalciner cement kilns since South Dakota’s 2003 BACT determination. The NPS also stated that it found three entries for Portland cement plants in the RBLC, all of which were preheater/precalciners and all of which included SNCR to reduce NOX to approximately half the rate allowed by DENR. Response: As discussed above, at the time of the 2003 BACT determination, South Dakota considered SNCR as an available and feasible technology for GCC Dacotah Kiln #6. However, given the current configuration of Kiln #6, VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:14 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 226001 South Dakota’s position (as discussed above) is that site-specific considerations prevent the effective use of SNCR in Kiln #6 without significant process modifications. The citation to the RBLC and the other documents does not convince us that SNCR is routinely applied to existing preheater/ precalciner kilns, regardless of sitespecific consideration such as the current design. Thus, the comments do not give us any basis to find that the State was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT determination for Kiln #6. Comment: In reference to EPA’s proposed action, which states ‘‘South Dakota declined to conduct a four-factor analysis for GCC Dacotah Kiln 6,’’ The NPS asserted that a state cannot simply decline without good reason and an explanation for the public record. The NPS stated that DENR’s email to EPA Region 8 does not satisfy the BART Guidelines, which state, ‘‘if you disagree with public comments asserting that the technology is available, you should provide an explanation for the public record as to the basis for your conclusion.’’ The NPS does not believe this portion of the BART Guidelines is satisfied ‘‘because it was not made part of DENR’s public record and appears to simply be a re-statement of DENR’s outdated 2003 BACT determination.’’ Response: We disagree. We noted in our proposal that the State relied on the 2003 BACT determination instead of conducting a four-factor analysis for Kiln #6. We discuss the State’s response to comments on SNCR for Kiln #6 elsewhere. There are two critical principles expressed in our BART guidelines that are equally relevant to an RP determination. First, as part of a BART analysis, technically infeasible control options are eliminated from further review. For BART, EPA’s criteria for determining whether a control option is technically infeasible are substantially the same as the criteria used for determining technical infeasibility in the BACT context. 70 FR 39165; EPA’s ‘‘New Source Review Workshop Manual,’’ pages B.17–B.22. Second, states may often be able to rely on a recent BACT determination for a source for purposes of determining BART for that source, unless new technologies have become available or best control levels for recent retrofits have become more stringent. As a general rule, the selection of a recent BACT level as BART is the equivalent of selecting the most stringent level of control, and consideration of the five statutory BART factors becomes unnecessary. Given the overlap of the four statutory RP factors with the five statutory BART factors, we PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 think the same principle applies to RP determinations. Furthermore, as discussed in more detail elsewhere, in this case it is not just the selection of BACT in the 2003 PSD permit proceeding that the State relies on, it is specific information from that BACT determination that is relevant to application of SNCR to Kiln #6 as it exists now. Independently of the selection of BACT in 2003, that information (as explained elsewhere) and South Dakota’s statements regarding site-specific considerations sufficiently explain the State’s action so that EPA is not prepared to determine that South Dakota was unreasonable. Comment: The NPCA stated that SNCR ‘‘likely should have’’ been determined to be BACT in the 2003 PSD permit proceeding. Response: The NPCA does not identify any flaw in the 2003 BACT determination, and none in particular in the information and analyses in that determination on which we rely. Thus, the comment does not give us any basis to change our proposed action. Comment: The NPCA stated that, should the proposed rate of progress continue, South Dakota’s reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for natural visibility at Wind Cave and Badlands national parks are, respectively, 172 years and 201 years after the target date of 2064. The NPCA stated that the uniform rate of progress (URP) will ‘‘egregiously’’ not be met, and that the State must therefore analyze and require RP for BART and non-BART sources alike based on the statutory factors. EPA is also required to evaluate the State’s RPGs based on the four statutory factors.18 The NPS cited EPA Region 8’s proposed rulemaking for North Dakota’s Regional Haze SIP to reiterate that South Dakota must demonstrate why its RPGs and rejection of RP controls are reasonable.19 The NPCA, therefore, stated that South Dakota and EPA erroneously declined to analyze and require controls for GCC Dacotah, which qualifies as ‘‘any potentially affected source’’ and ‘‘contributes significantly to visibility impairment at its Class I areas.’’ 20 Response: With respect to BART sources, generally a source-specific BART determination is equivalent to a 18 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iii). FR 183. ‘‘Because the reasonable progress goals fall short of the uniform rate of progress, North Dakota must demonstrate that its reasonable progress goals and rejection of reasonable progress controls is reasonable, based on the four factors. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).’’ 20 Commenter’s repeated claim that visibility impacts from Kiln #6 are ‘‘significant’’ appears to have been extrapolated by a comparison of the combined impacts from Kilns #4 and #5. 19 76 E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM 26APR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations source-specific RP determination. As we are approving South Dakota’s BART determination for Big Stone, RP requirements for that source are satisfied. With respect to the RP sources, and GCC Dacotah Kilns #4 and #5 in particular, we find South Dakota’s RP determinations reasonable. We also explain above the specific information and analyses in the 2003 BACT determination for Kiln #6 that sufficiently support South Dakota’s action so we are not prepared to find it unreasonable. The commenters did not identify any deficiencies in South Dakota’s RP determinations for other potentially affected sources, or (aside from comments specifically on GCC Dacotah) in the reasons given in our proposal for why South Dakota’s RPGs were reasonable. The comments therefore give no basis for us to change our proposed action. Comment: The NPS stated that, if Q/D 21 were calculated for GCC Dacotah’s Kiln #6, its value of 48 would be double that of the next highest evaluated source (Ben French power plant), and more than double the combined value of GCC Dacotah’s Kilns #4 and 5. The NPS therefore believed that Kiln #6 is the most significant of the sources that should have been evaluated under the RP provisions of the Regional Haze Rule. Response: For reasons explained elsewhere, we are not prepared to find that South Dakota was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT determination to meet the requirements of the Regional Haze rule with respect to GCC Dacotah Kiln #6. This is true regardless of the value of Q/D for Kiln #6 alone. Comment: The NPS stated that it is incorrect for EPA to conclude that the visibility benefits from GCC Dacotah would be small. Because Kiln #6 wasn’t modeled, the NPS noted it is inappropriate to conclude that the modeled benefits are small because the analysis of those benefits (including specifically the benefits of adding SNCR to Kiln #6) is incomplete. The NPS further stated that it is reasonable to conclude that, if emissions from Kiln #6 were modeled, they might show that Kiln #6 is a significant contributor to visibility impairment. For this reason, the commenter stated that EPA is incorrect in stating that South Dakota based its determination for Kiln #6 on visibility benefits rather than on a four factor analysis. 21 EPA calculated Q/D as follows: The total emissions (SO2 + NOX) in tons per year for a source divided by the source’s distance in kilometers to the nearest Class I Federal area. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:14 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 226001 Response: We agree that the State did not provide visibility modeling, either of baseline impacts or of benefits, for Kiln #6, and did not base its decision regarding Kiln #6 on visibility modeling. In assessing South Dakota’s submittal, we did note that South Dakota modeled baseline impacts for Kilns #4 and #5 combined and relied on that data, and, in contrast, for Kiln #6 we noted instead that South Dakota relied on the 2003 BACT determination. (See 76 FR 76665.) For the reasons discussed elsewhere, we are not prepared to find that reliance unreasonable. Comment: The NPS stated that, in this action, EPA is considering any cost excessive because of its assumption that visibility benefits would be minimal. The NPS contrasted this action with EPA statements from other actions regarding cost effectiveness. The NPS stated that if EPA bases its decision that lack of visibility benefits trumps a fourfactor analysis for a situation in which URP is far from being met, it should ‘‘conduct a valid modeling analysis to estimate the actual benefits on which it is basing its decision.’’ The NPS stated that this analysis should be related to the $18 million per deciview average for NOX control costs, which the NPS stated has become the ‘‘national norm.’’ The NPS referred to Colorado’s Holcim Cement plant, a potentially affected source for which Colorado is requiring SNCR for RP. The NPS argued that GCC Dacotah Cement’s total visibility impact would have been similar or greater than that of Holcim Cement in Colorado, had Kiln #6 been included in GCC Dacotah’s modeling. The NPS argued that GCC Dacotah Cement should not be given a competitive advantage over other cement facilities that are also subject to the Regional Haze program requirements. Response: As a general matter, the Regional Haze rule does not impose uniform numeric standards, such as specific cost effectiveness or visibility benefit levels, that a State is required to use in determining whether a control should be imposed at a potentially affected source for RP. Instead, consistent with the CAA, the rule requires the State to consider certain factors in determining RP. If the State’s selected controls do not achieve the URP, the State is required to demonstrate that the State’s choice was reasonable and that it was unreasonable to meet the URP. In our review of a state’s RP determination for a potentially affected source, it is our task to determine that the state reasonably considered the relevant factors. Thus, in approving PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 24853 South Dakota’s RP determination for Kilns #4 and #5, we are not stating a principle that EPA considers any cost excessive when the visibility benefits are minimal, or are below some threshold. Instead, we are finding that the State considered the factors set out in the CAA and reached a result that we are not prepared to say is unreasonable. We also do not find it unreasonable for a state to rely on baseline visibility impacts to assess potential controls. While modeling of the reductions from controls could give a more precise measure of visibility benefits, baseline visibility impacts do bear a rational relation to visibility benefits. At a minimum, visibility benefits are bounded by baseline visibility impacts. Furthermore, what is reasonable is subject to a certain amount of variation from state to state, from facility to facility, and from location to location.22 EPA, therefore, rejects the notion that the reasonableness of a state’s RP determination should be assessed against a ‘‘national norm’’ based on dollars per deciview. EPA also rejects the comparison of South Dakota’s determination to not impose SNCR at Kiln #6 with Colorado’s determination to impose SNCR at the Holcim Florence facility. The details show the facilities are not similar. In its RP determination for the Holcim Florence facility, Colorado noted that the existing design of the facility, in particular the preheater/precalciner vessels, provided locations with appropriate temperatures for injection of ammonia. Colorado therefore considered SNCR to be technically and economically feasible, and derived a cost effectiveness of $2,293 per ton of NOX removed for SNCR.23 In contrast, South Dakota states that the existing design of Kiln #6 does not provide appropriate locations for use of SNCR; in other words, that an effective installation of SNCR would require significant process modifications. Comment: The NPS stated that DENR and EPA should explain why the cost estimates for SNCR at Kilns #4 and #5 were so much higher than average. Commenter also stated that DENR used EPA’s Nov. 2007 ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques Document Update—NOX Emissions from New Cement Kilns’’ to 22 For example, in one notice cited by NPS, we stated that a cost effectiveness value was ‘‘well within the range of values we have considered reasonable for BART and that states other than North Dakota have considered cost effective.’’ 76 FR 58570 (Sept. 21, 2011) (emphasis added). 23 Colorado Regional Haze SIP, Appendix D, Reasonable Progress (RP) Four-Factor Analysis of Control Options for Holcim Portland Plant, Florence, Colorado, p. 16. E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM 26APR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 24854 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations estimate the cost of an SNCR system, though this document was developed for the review of dry kilns and not a wet kiln. Response: The State provided its explanation for its derivation of costs for SNCR.24 In discussing its derivation of costs, South Dakota recognized that EPA’s November 2007 document was developed for dry kilns. South Dakota stated that SNCR had only been used on wet kilns in Europe and recently on one wet kiln in the United States. Regardless, by any methodology, the cost-effectiveness of SNCR would likely be higher than that for LNB, while, based on estimates by the State on which the NPS did not comment, both SNCR and LNB would have the same control efficiency of 30 to 40%. As explained elsewhere, we are not prepared to find that South Dakota was unreasonable in relying on baseline visibility impacts for Kilns #4 and #5 in determining that LNB (or any other costeffective controls) were not reasonable. Given that and the higher likely costeffectiveness of SNCR for the same reductions as LNB, the reasons given in our responses for Kiln #6 apply with equal force to SNCR for Kilns #4 and #5. Comment: The NPS stated that South Dakota rejected the results of the fourfactor analyses which show additional controls are reasonable on GCC Dacotah Cement Kilns #4 and #5. The NPS asserted that EPA ‘‘should conduct a valid four-factor analysis (which includes an up-to-date review of SNCR) for all three kilns at GCC Dacotah Cement.’’ Response: In this action, it is not EPA’s task in the first instance to independently conduct its own analysis of the four statutory RP factors. As discussed above, it is EPA’s task to review South Dakota’s determination. With regard to GCC Dacotah Kiln #6, EPA is not prepared to find that South Dakota was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT determination with regard to GCC Dacotah Kiln #6. With regard to Kilns #4 and #5, South Dakota considered the four statutory RP factors. South Dakota then considered the baseline visibility impacts of Kilns #4 and #5 combined and decided not to impose controls. EPA is not prepared to find that South Dakota was unreasonable in that decision. Comment: The NPS stated that GCC Dacotah Kiln #6 should not be allowed to operate until 2018 and beyond ‘‘without current state-of-the-art emission controls, or even any evaluation of its emission controls, 24 South Dakota Regional Haze SIP, Table 7–2, p. 3. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:14 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 226001 while it continues to affect visibility at Wind Cave and Badlands national parks.’’ Response: RP does not per se require use of the most current emission controls. As discussed elsewhere, various potential controls were evaluated in the State’s 2003 BACT determination for Kiln #6. We, therefore, disagree with the statements to the extent that they argue we are compelled to disapprove the State’s Regional Haze SIP with regard to GCC Dacotah Kiln #6. Comment: The NPS stated that, on August 17, 2011, it commented to DENR that the RP analysis should evaluate controls for Kiln #6 and that the NPS believes now, as it did in commenting on the 2003 PSD permit, that SNCR is a feasible option for cement kilns. The NPS stated a response to this comment should have been made available in the DENR public records, and that DENR has not met the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) to ‘‘provide in its Regional Haze SIP a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs.’’ Response: To assess South Dakota’s response to the NPS’s comments, it is useful to discuss the history of the development of the South Dakota Regional Haze SIP. On January 15, 2010, the State provided a draft SIP to the FLMs for consultation. The NPS commented generally that the SIP was lacking four-factor analyses of potentially affected sources for RP. The EPA also made specific suggestions regarding which facilities, at a minimum, seemed to warrant four-factor analyses under RP. On August 23, 2010, South Dakota provided a draft SIP for public comment. This draft also did not include four-factor analyses of potentially affected sources. The NPS did not comment (nor was it required to) on the issue; the EPA commented that the SIP should contain the fourfactor analyses and again suggested several facilities, at a minimum, to be analyzed. On January 21, 2011, South Dakota promulgated a final Regional Haze SIP. This version included four-factor analyses of some potentially affected sources for RP including GCC Dacotah Kilns #4 and #5. The SIP included responses to both FLM and public comments. However, the State subsequently amended the SIP to, among other things, evaluate an additional control technology, SNCR, at Kilns #4 and #5. As a result, South Dakota provided a draft amended SIP on September 19, 2011. During the public comment PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 period, the NPS commented on Kiln #6 as the NPS has stated above. The State presented the issue of SNCR for Kiln #6 to the South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment at a hearing on August 18, 2011. South Dakota stated its reasons for relying on the 2003 BACT determination to reject SNCR as a possible control for Kiln #6 for RP.25 Given these particular circumstances, we think that South Dakota has sufficiently met the requirements for FLM coordination and response to comments with regard to regional haze requirements for Kiln #6. H. General Comments Comment: The NPCA stated that South Dakota’s SIP is inconsistent in that it requires adequate controls for certain facilities and not others. The commenter urged EPA to require additional emission reductions from South Dakota sources, mirroring the significant reductions being required in other States and for other sources throughout the country. The commenter referenced other actions in Region 6 and Region 8 as examples.26 Response: We took into consideration South Dakota’s analyses based on the statutory factors and determined that these analyses, and the control selections they support, were satisfactory to meet the regional haze requirements in this planning period. The State imposed stringent levels of control on its one BART source, Big Stone I, and provided sufficient justification based on its case-by-case analysis for emission limits at this source that are slightly above some of the examples cited by commenters. We also continue to find that, for GCC Dacotah under RP that the State provided sufficient basis for its reliance on its 2003 BACT determination as described elsewhere in our responses. Finally, as explained in the context of RP determinations in our responses elsewhere in this action, the Regional Haze Rule does not impose uniform numeric standards across States for emissions reductions. Therefore, the examples cited by NPCA are of limited utility. Comment: One commenter stated that national parks and wilderness areas boost their area economies. Specifically, commenter cited 2010 visitation 25 The audio of the August 18, 2011 hearing is available on the Board’s Web site: https:// denr.sd.gov/boards/2011/2011sche.aspx. We have placed a transcript of the relevant portions in the docket for this action. 26 Federal Implementation Plans for the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico (76 FR 52388) and Oklahoma (76 FR 81727) and the proposed Federal Implementation Plan for North Dakota (76 FR 58570). E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM 26APR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations statistics for Badlands National Park (977,778) and Wind Cave National Park (577,141), and noted that similar visitation in 2009 resulted in $61 million in spending and over 1,000 jobs. The commenter stated that reduction in visibility could result in decreased visits to Class I areas. The commenter also stated that installation of pollution control technologies is a job-creating mechanism. Response: We agree with the comment. Although we did not consider the potential positive benefits to the local and national economies in making our decision today, we do expect that improved visibility would have a positive impact on tourism-dependent local economies. Also, some of these retrofits will create construction projects that we expect may take several years to complete, and will require well-paid, skilled labor which can potentially be drawn from the local area, which may benefit the economy. Comment: One commenter stated that haze pollution significantly impacts human and ecosystem health. Specifically, the commenter asserted that haze pollution contributes to heart attacks, asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis and respiratory illness, increased hospital admissions, lost work and school days, and even premature death. The commenter also noted the specific haze pollutants NOX, SO2 and PM, which the commenter stated are all harmful to the human body. The commenter also stated that haze pollution negatively impacts ecosystem health. The commenter specifically expressed concern for the effects of haze pollution on waterways, soils, plants and wildlife. Response: We appreciate the commenter’s concerns regarding the negative health impacts of emissions from facilities in South Dakota. We agree that the same PM2.5 emissions that cause visibility impairment can be inhaled deep into lungs, which can cause respiratory problems, decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, bronchitis, and premature death. We also agree that the same NOX emissions that cause visibility impairment also contribute to the formation of groundlevel ozone, which has been linked with respiratory problems, aggravated asthma, and even permanent lung damage. We agree that these pollutants can have negative impacts on plants and ecosystems, damaging plants, trees and other vegetation, and reducing forest growth and crop yields, which could have a negative effect on species diversity in ecosystems. However, for purposes of this action, we are not authorized to consider these impacts in VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:14 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 226001 evaluating the reasonableness of South Dakota’s Regional Haze SIP, and we have not done so. Comment: The environmental advocacy group CREDO Action submitted comments from 225 individuals. Many of these comments were identical, and most if not all generally requested that EPA strengthen our proposal, specifically at Big Stone I and GCC Dacotah Cement. Response: EPA appreciates the comments, but is approving South Dakota’s Regional Haze SIP as proposed for the reasons stated in the proposal and in previous responses to comments in this action. Comment: South Dakota DENR stated that it believes the South Dakota Regional Haze SIP will improve visibility in the State’s parks and provide improved visitor experience, and commends those involved in developing the SIP. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter. III. Final Action EPA is taking final action to approve the State of South Dakota’s Regional Haze SIP, submitted by the State on January 21, 2011, along with an amendment submitted on September 19, 2011. EPA finds that the South Dakota Regional Haze SIP submittal meets all of the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in section 169A and 169B of the Act and in the Federal regulations codified at 40 CFR 51.300– 308, and the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart F and appendix V. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 24855 significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM 26APR1 24856 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 25, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to State citation * Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: March 29, 2012. James B. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region 8. § 52.2170 PART 52—[AMENDED] * 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ State effective date * Identification of plan. * * (c) * * * (1) * * * * EPA approval date and citation 1 * * * Explanations * * Regional Haze Program 74:36:21:01 ....... Applicability ................................... 12/7/10 74:36:21:02 ....... Definitions ..................................... 9/19/11 74:36:21:03 ....... Existing stationary facility defined 12/7/10 74:36:21:04 ....... Visibility impact analysis ............... 12/7/10 74:36:21:05 ....... BART determination ...................... 12/7/10 74:36:21:06 ....... BART determination for a BARTeligible coal-fired power plant. 9/19/11 74:36:21:07 ....... Installation of controls based on visibility impact analysis or BART determination. Operation and maintenance of controls. 12/7/10 12/7/10 74:36:21:09 ....... Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. 9/19/11 74:36:21:10 ....... Permit to construct ........................ 12/7/10 74:36:21:11 ....... Permit required for BART determination. 12/7/10 74:36:21:12 ....... mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 2. In § 52.2170 the table in paragraph (c)(1) is amended by adding a new section, 74:36:21 Regional Haze Program, in numerical order and the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding entries for XII. South Dakota Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, and XIII. South Dakota Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, Amendment, in numerical order. The amendments read as follows: ■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows: 74:36:21 74:36:21:08 ....... Subpart QQ—South Dakota List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Title/subject * Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) Federal land manager notification and review. 12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins.] 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins.] 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins.] 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins.] 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins.] 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins.] 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins.] 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins.] 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins.] 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins.] 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins.] 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins.] 1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. * * * VerDate Mar<15>2010 * * 16:14 Apr 25, 2012 (e) * * * Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM 26APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date/adopted date EPA approval date and citation 5 * XII. South Dakota Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. * * Statewide .......................... * Submitted: 1/21/11 ............ * * 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins.] XIII. South Dakota Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, Amendment. Statewide .......................... Submitted: 9/19/11 ............ 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins.] 24857 Explanations * Excluding portions of the following: Sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 8.5 because these provisions were superseded by a later submittal. Including only portions of the following: Sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 8.5; excluding all other portions of the submittal. 5 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. [FR Doc. 2012–8988 Filed 4–25–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0266; FRL–9665–5] Interim Final Determination To Stay and Defer Sanctions, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Interim final rule. AGENCY: EPA is making an interim final determination to stay the imposition of offset sanctions and to defer the imposition of highway sanctions based on a proposed approval of revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) published elsewhere in this Federal Register. The revisions concern SJVUAPCD Rule 4352, Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters. SUMMARY: This interim final determination is effective on April 26, 2012. However, comments will be accepted until May 29, 2012. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2012–0266, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions. 2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES DATES: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:14 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 226001 Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 I. Background On October 1, 2010 (75 FR 60623), we published a limited approval and limited disapproval of SJVUAPCD Rule 4352 as adopted locally on May 18, 2006 and submitted by the State on October 5, 2006. We based our limited disapproval action on certain deficiencies in the submittal. This disapproval action started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after November 1, 2010 and highway sanctions 6 months later, pursuant to section 179 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. Under 40 CFR 52.31(d)(1), offset sanctions apply eighteen months after the effective date of a disapproval and highway sanctions apply six months after the offset sanctions, unless we determine that the deficiencies forming the basis of the disapproval have been corrected. On December 15, 2011, SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to Rule 4352 that were intended to correct the deficiencies identified in our October 1, 2010 limited approval and limited disapproval action. On February 23, 2012, the State submitted the revised rule to EPA. In the Proposed Rules section of today’s Federal Register, we are proposing to fully approve this revised rule because we believe it corrects the deficiencies identified in our October 1, 2010 disapproval action. Based on today’s proposed approval, we are taking this final rulemaking action, effective on publication, to stay the imposition of the offset sanctions and to defer the imposition of the highway sanctions that were triggered by our October 1, 2010 limited disapproval. EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this stay/ deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our assessment described in this final determination and the proposed full approval of E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGM 26APR1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24845-24857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8988]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0870; FRL-9658-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota;
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the South
Dakota State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing regional haze
submitted by the State of South Dakota on January 21, 2011, along with
an amendment submitted on September 19, 2011. EPA has determined that
the plan submitted by South Dakota satisfies the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and our rules that require states to prevent
any future and remedy any existing man-made impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a

[[Page 24846]]

wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``Regional Haze
program'').

DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0870. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the Air
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Fallon, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-
AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6281, or fallon.gail@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the
Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
The initials BACT mean or refer to best available control
technology.
The initials BART mean or refer to best available retrofit
technology.
The initials CAMD mean or refer to EPA's Clean Air Markets
Database.
The initials CO2 mean or refer to carbon dioxide.
The initials DENR mean or refer to the South Dakota
Department of Natural Resources.
The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
The initials FGD or scrubber mean or refer to flue gas
desulfurization.
The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation
Plan.
The initials FLM mean or refer to Federal Land Manager.
The initials LNB mean or refer to low NOX
burners.
The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
The initials NPCA mean or refer to the National Parks
Conservation Association.
The initials NPS mean or refer to the National Park
Service.
The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
The initials PM mean or refer to particulate matter.
The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers or fine
particulate matter.
The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers or fine particulate
matter.
The initials PSD mean or refer to prevention of
significant deterioration.
The initials RBLC mean or refer to the RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse.
The initials RP mean or refer to reasonable progress.
The initials RPG mean or refer to reasonable progress
goal.
The initials SCR mean or refer to selective catalytic
reduction.
The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic
reduction.
The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
The words South Dakota and State mean the State of South
Dakota unless the context indicates otherwise.
The initials URP mean or refer to uniform rate of
progress.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses
A. General Comments on the Big Stone I BART Determination
B. Comments on the Big Stone I SO2 BART Determination
C. Comments on the Big Stone I NOX BART Determination
D. Comments on Big Stone I PM BART Determination
E. Startup, Shutdown and Enforceability Comments
F. Modeling Comments
G. GCC Dacotah Cement Comments
H. General Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

We signed our notice of proposed rulemaking on November 29, 2011,
and it was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2011. In
that notice, we proposed approval of the State of South Dakota's
Regional Haze SIP for the first implementation period (through 2018).
76 FR 76646. A detailed explanation of the CAA's visibility
requirements and the Regional Haze Rule as it applies to South Dakota
was provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking and will not be
restated here. EPA's rationale for proposing approval of the South
Dakota SIP revision was described in detail in the proposal, and is
further described in this final rulemaking.
South Dakota has one source, Big Stone I Unit 1 (Big Stone I),
which is subject to the best available retrofit technology (BART)
requirements.\1\ Big Stone I is a coal-fired power plant. The State has
identified various BART requirements including emission limits and
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting for Big Stone I. In South
Dakota's Administrative Rules, Chapter 74:36:21 notes these
requirements apply to a BART-eligible source. Regardless of the generic
language, wherever a requirement is identified for a BART-eligible
source in Chapter 74:36:21, South Dakota intended for the provisions of
the state rule to apply to Big Stone I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See SIP Section 6 for South Dakota's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses

This action addresses comments on the South Dakota Regional Haze
SIP. The publication of EPA's proposed rule on December 8, 2011
initiated a 60-day public comment period that ended on February 6,
2012. During the public comment period we received written comments
from the State of South Dakota, CREDO Action, the National Parks
Conservation Association (NPCA), the Sierra Club, and the National Park
Service (NPS). We have reviewed the comments and provided our responses
below. Full copies of the comment letters are available in the docket
for this rulemaking.

A. General Comments on the Big Stone I BART Determination

Comment: One commenter stated that South Dakota is not excused from
following a reasonable analysis in evaluating BART and setting BART
emission limits because Big Stone I has a generating capacity less than
750 MW. South Dakota is still obligated to comply with BART as defined
at 40 CFR 51.301 and to include controls with the top level of
pollutant removal efficiency in evaluating the ``best system of
continuous emission reduction.''
Because South Dakota did not consider the capabilities of various
pollution controls in its BART analysis for Big Stone I, its cost
impact analysis is skewed in favor of low-cost equipment, and does not
evaluate cost

[[Page 24847]]

impacts in terms of pollution reduced. The State must consider varying
levels of pollution control efficiency in its Big Stone BART analyses.
Response: We agree with the commenter that the Regional Haze Rule
requires states to consider the most stringent level of control.
However, we disagree with the statements that South Dakota's BART
analysis is skewed in favor of low-cost equipment for Big Stone I, and
that the analysis does not evaluate cost impacts in terms of pollution
reduced. South Dakota did describe the range of control efficiencies
possible for the various technically feasible control options in its
BART determinations. While we acknowledge that South Dakota did not
select the highest control efficiency option in every case (e.g., South
Dakota selected semi-dry instead of wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD
or ``scrubber'' controls) for SO2 control), we find the
State was reasonable in its selection of controls considering the five
statutory factors and did not unreasonably reject any control options
based on cost as further explained in our responses to other comments
in this action.

B. Comments on the Big Stone I SO2 BART Determination

Comment: Two commenters stated that the SO2 emission
limit for Big Stone I is too high as a result of the baseline emission
rate used in the analysis. The commenters stated that Otter Tail Power
Company, the operator of Big Stone, and the State both incorrectly
assumed an uncontrolled SO2 emission rate of 0.86 lb/MMBtu
for the Big Stone I BART determination. Otter Tail claimed this rate
was the highest 24-hour average rate of SO2 emitted by Big
Stone I during 2001-2003. While the BART Guidelines \2\ require use of
the highest daily emissions in the visibility modeling analysis, that
is not an appropriate starting point for setting a BART emission limit.
The Sierra Club believed that this rate should have instead been based
on the highest 30-day average uncontrolled SO2 emission
rate, because BART emission limits apply on a 30-day average basis. The
Sierra Club recommended a baseline emission rate of 0.70 lb/MMBtu,
which is the maximum annual average SO2 emission rate at Big
Stone I over the last ten years, according to EPA's Clean Air Markets
Database (CAMD), or at the very least recommends the highest 30-day
average uncontrolled SO2 emission rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NPCA stated that it is unclear where the 0.86 lb/MMBtu baseline
originates. The NPCA stated that the highest 30-day rolling period for
SO2 during the baseline period (2001-2003) was 0.82 lbs/
MMBtu, and that no monthly value was higher than 0.81 lbs/MMBtu through
2010.
The NPCA also noted that the baseline assumes 85% operations, while
the baseline period operations averaged 91%, and averaged 92% from
2003-2010.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The commenter cited EPA's CAMD for hours of operation at Big
Stone I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: The BART Guidelines describe the process for calculating
the average cost effectiveness of a control strategy.\4\ As part of
this calculation, baseline annual emissions must be calculated, and
section IV.D.4.c of the BART Guidelines describes the calculation of
baseline emissions. The BART Guidelines state,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.D.4.c.

``1. The baseline emissions rate should represent a realistic
depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source. In
general, for the existing sources subject to BART, you will estimate
the anticipated annual emissions based upon actual emissions from a
baseline period.
2. When you project that future operating parameters (e.g.,
limited hours of operation materials or product mix or type) will
differ from past practice, and if this projection has a deciding
effect in the BART determination, then you must make these
parameters or assumptions into enforceable limitations. In the
absence of enforceable limitations, you calculate baseline emissions
based upon continuation of past practice.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.D.4.d.

States have some flexibility in determining baseline emissions but
should develop a ``realistic depiction of anticipated annual
emissions.'' While the use of the highest 24-hour emission rate to
estimate annual emissions would not likely result in a realistic
estimate of annual emissions, had the State relied on the highest 30-
day rolling average value, it is unlikely that it would have arrived at
a different conclusion regarding BART. First, the baseline emissions
that the State relied on in its calculation of average cost result in
lower estimates of average cost than would have resulted from using the
approach suggest by the commenter. In addition, the primary basis for
the State's BART determination was the visibility benefits that were
based on the 24-hour maximum emissions rates. Moreover, BART emission
limits, which apply at all times, including during startup and shutdown
must allow an adequate margin for compliance.
In addition, the State assumed baseline emissions of 18,000 tons
per year for its BART analysis. By contrast, emissions data in CAMD
shows that the emissions between 2001 and 2003 were 12,540 tons per
year. Therefore, we find the State did not underestimate the baseline
emissions in its BART analysis.
Based on our review of all the information, we find that South
Dakota acted reasonably in establishing the SO2 BART
emission limit for Big Stone.
Comment: One commenter stated that the South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) incorrectly assumed 95%
SO2 control efficiency for wet FGD, which can actually
achieve as high as 99% control efficiency. The commenter gave several
examples of wet scrubbers that have achieved up to 99% removal
efficiency, and included cost estimates for certain technologies to
argue that the costs for some of these systems ``are well within the
range EPA normally considers cost effective'' in best available control
technology (BACT) analyses. In its evaluation of a wet scrubber for
BART, the Big Stone I BART Analysis should have evaluated these levels
of control.
The commenter also stated that the State incorrectly assumed 90%
SO2 control with a dry scrubber at Big Stone I, and
therefore, proposed an emission limit of 0.09 lb/MMBtu which was too
high. Using the Sierra Club's previously proposed baseline emission
rate of 0.70 lb/MMBtu, the BART emission limit with a 90% efficient dry
scrubber should be 0.07 lb/MMBtu at most. Additionally, other
facilities are currently subject to higher removal efficiency
requirements (up to 95%) with dry scrubbers, and corresponding lower
SO2 BACT limits than the 0.09 lb/MMBtu proposed by the
State. Another commenter stated that more accurate reflections of the
maximum capabilities of wet and dry scrubbers would cut remaining
emissions significantly (75% and 50%, respectively), and requests that
EPA adjust the final emission limits appropriately. This commenter also
quoted the BART Guidelines; ``the list [of available technologies] is
complete if it includes the maximum level of control each technology is
capable of achieving.''
Response: We agree that, in some cases, wet and dry scrubbers can
achieve greater emission reductions than those assumed by South Dakota.
However, when the sulfur content of the coal is low, a lower control
efficiency is anticipated. Due to the very low sulfur content of the
coal burned at Big Stone I, on average 0.57%, it is unlikely that the
high control efficiencies cited by the

[[Page 24848]]

commenter could be achieved.\6\ South Dakota also provided explanatory
information in its response to comments in Appendix E of the SIP that
it considered SO2 inlet concentrations in its estimation of
possible control efficiencies. In addition, BART emission limits, which
apply at all times, including during startup and shutdown must allow an
adequate margin for compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Utility Plants, 1999
Tables, DOE/EIA-091(99), June 2000, Table 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, with regard to the proposed emission limits for dry
scrubbers at Big Stone I, we find that South Dakota's limit of 0.09 lb/
MMBtu is reasonable for dry scrubbers at the facility, and we are
approving it.
Comment: One commenter stated that the choice of semi-dry FGD over
wet FGD was largely based on modeling results about which EPA noted;
``It is not clear why the model predicted this result; it may relate to
stack parameters.'' 76 FR 76656. The commenter stated that EPA should
not rely on ``unreliable, unexplained, or not logical'' modeling
results.
Response: We disagree that the model results, upon which the State
and EPA relied for this action, are ``unreliable, unexplained, or not
logical.'' The CALPUFF modeling protocol used for the South Dakota
Regional Haze SIP conforms to the BART Guidelines, and we received no
information to the contrary aside from the general comment directly
above. We also note that the stack parameters used in the model differ
for the two options. Wet FGD results in a cooler plume with less
velocity and thermal buoyancy than dry FGD. This is likely to have
affected the model predictions.
Comment: One commenter stated that South Dakota's cost
effectiveness calculation of a wet scrubber, $1,699/ton at an
SO2 emission rate of 0.043 lb/MMBtu, is reasonable when
compared to other BART determinations at similar facilities.\7\ South
Dakota, therefore, lacks justification to discount installation of a
wet scrubber based on costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Commenter referenced an NPS spreadsheet with cost
information on BART determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: Neither EPA nor South Dakota discounted the installation
of a wet scrubber based on costs. As stated in the proposal, ``the
State deemed the average cost effectiveness reasonable for the two
remaining control options, semi-dry and wet FGD.'' 76 FR 76656.
Comment: One commenter noted Otter Tail's BART submittal based its
costs on the CUE Cost model rather than EPA's Control Cost Manual,
which contradicts the BART Guidelines and makes comparison with other
cost effectiveness values difficult.
Response: As we commented to South Dakota previously,\8\ while we
are satisfied with the BART conclusions, in general we do not recommend
relying on the CUE Cost model. We agree with the commenter that
according to the BART Guidelines, in order to maintain and improve
consistency, cost estimates should be based on the Control Cost Manual.
Since South Dakota determined all control options in its BART analysis
were cost effective, and it relied primarily on visibility benefits in
its final BART determinations, the use of the CUE Cost model did not
affect the final result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ March 12, 2010 letter from EPA Region 8, Callie Videtich to
DENR, Brian Gustafson, re: EPA Region 8 Comments on January 15, 2010
Draft Regional Haze SIP (FLM Consultation Version).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: One commenter stated that DENR and Otter Tail failed to
adequately evaluate the environmental benefits of a wet scrubber as
opposed to a dry scrubber. First, because wet scrubbers are much more
efficient at controlling SO2, they will be needed to work in
conjunction with likely ``mandated'' future carbon dioxide
(CO2) emission controls, which require SO2
removal efficiency at 98-99%. Second, wet scrubbers are much more
effective than dry scrubbers at controlling emissions of hydrogen
chloride and hydrogen fluoride, and ``provide significant removal of
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and mercury
from flue gas.'' \9\ Third, decreases in SO2 emissions
translate to lower PM2.5 concentrations because of the
decrease in sulfate formation. Decrease in sulfate can also prevent
damage to certain water bodies and wetlands. Another commenter also
stated that EPA did not adequately take into account the additional
environmental benefits from use of a wet scrubber and the low energy
use associated with some newer models, and asks EPA to revisit this
aspect of the technology section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Commenter cited https://www.icac.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3401 for quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: We took into account the State's consideration of
environmental impacts when reviewing the Big Stone I SO2
BART determination, as required by the BART Guidelines and evidenced in
our proposal. 76 FR 76656. The CAA requires consideration of energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts; the commenter's concerns relate
primarily to air quality issues. The State did identify non-air quality
environmental impacts in Section 6 of the SIP. South Dakota noted that
the dry scrubber would be installed upstream of the existing baghouse,
resulting in some negligible additional material being collected in the
baghouse. In addition, the energy issue raised by the commenter related
to wet versus dry scrubbing is addressed in the SIP in Table 6-8 where
the State notes that the wet scrubber control option uses more energy
than the dry scrubber option, 9,500 kW versus 3,325 kW. We also note
that Sierra Club's suggestion of future mandates for CO2
emission controls is speculative and that it is premature for us to
consider in this action. Accordingly, our consideration of
environmental impacts was sufficient.

C. Comments on the Big Stone I NOX BART Determination

Comment: One commenter stated that it is unclear where the baseline
rate of 0.86 lbs/MMBtu for NOX originated, because the
thirty-day rolling values for NOX only reached 0.85 lbs/
MMBtu during the baseline period. The commenter noted that the thirty-
day rolling values for NOX have been at or below 0.71 lbs/
MMBtu since 2007 because of the installation of overfire air. The
commenter asserted that 0.71 lbs/MMBtu should therefore be the starting
point for additional NOX reductions from SCR. The commenter
also noted that the baseline assumes 85% operations, while the baseline
period operations averaged 91%, and averaged 92% from 2003-2010.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Commenter cited EPA's CAMD for hours of operation at Big
Stone I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: See our previous response in this action related to the
SO2 emission rate as it relates to baseline emissions.
Regarding the commenter's concern related to the hours of operation
assumed in the baseline, we note that the State's approach considerably
overestimates the baseline emissions. The State assumed baseline
emissions of 18,000 tons per year for its BART analysis. By contrast,
emissions data in CAMD shows that the emissions between 2001 and 2003
were 15,780 tons per year. Therefore, we find the State did not
underestimate the baseline emissions in its BART analysis.
Comment: One commenter stated that the NOX BART analysis
at Big Stone I is flawed because it fails to consider the level of
control available with SCR, resulting in an inflated NOX
emission limit. DENR's proposed NOX emission rate of 0.10
lb/MMBtu reflects 85.9% NOX control with the installation of
SCR based on emission data showing that the highest monthly emission
rate of NOX in 2009 was 0.71 lb/MMBtu. SCR systems can
achieve 90% + NOX reductions,

[[Page 24849]]

meaning an emission limit of .071 lb/MMBtu is more reflective of SCR
capabilities. The commenter also cited recent SCR retrofits which have
resulted in emission rates lower than 0.05 lb/MMBtu being achieved.
Response: Because the control efficiency of SCR is dependent on the
NOX inlet concentration, it is more appropriate to assess
the control effectiveness of SCR relative to the performance rate.
Although we acknowledge that other SCR retrofits have resulted in lower
NOX emission levels than 0.10 lb/MMBtu, we find that South
Dakota's limit is reasonable using SCR plus separated overfire air at
Big Stone I. This is particularly true in light of the need to
establish an adequate margin of compliance for BART limits that must
apply at all times including startup and shutdown.

D. Comments on Big Stone I PM BART Determination

Comment: One commenter stated that DENR's proposed particulate
matter (PM) BART emission limit of 0.012 lb/MMBtu is not reflective of
the limits achievable by fabric filter baghouses, and is inconsistent
with some lower PM limits required as BACT. The commenter cited a
permit for a plant in Atlanta, Plant Washington, with a PM limit of
0.010 lb/MMBtu to argue that Big Stone's PM emission limit should be no
higher than this level.
Response: As noted in the proposal, the 0.012 lb/MMBtu PM emission
limit ``represents a stringent level of control that is consistent with
recent Best Available Control Technology determinations for PSD
[prevention of significant deterioration] permits.'' 76 FR 76659. Also,
performance test data for the baghouse indicates that the actual
emission rate is 0.011 lb/MMBtu. Therefore, we find the emission limit
set by South Dakota is commensurate with the actual performance of the
control device. Moreover, there is no indication that a more stringent
level of control would lead to meaningful visibility benefits.
Comment: One commenter asserted that DENR should require a PM
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) rather than the currently
proposed annual stack test to ensure continuous compliance with BART
limits. If not CEMS, commenter alternatively requested that DENR impose
a 10% opacity limit ``reflective of BART,'' noting that this would
ensure continuous compliance with the BART limit and that Big Stone
already has continuous opacity monitoring. Commenter noted that other
coal plants' permits include opacity limits of 10% or less.
Response: PM CEMS provides the most robust means of demonstrating
continuous compliance with the PM emission limits. However, we disagree
that their use is required in this case. We find that the monitoring
requirements in the South Dakota Regional Haze SIP are adequate to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the PM emission limits. South
Dakota noted in response to similar comments it received during its
public comment period that the State has the authority to require CEMS
as well as a 10% opacity limit, but that based on its case-by-case
analysis of the facility it believed an annual stack test was adequate
to meet the regional haze requirements. We agree with the State.
Comment: One commenter stated that the PM BART limit at Big Stone
should be required now because the baghouse has already been installed.
Response: Normally, we would agree that the PM BART limit should
apply as expeditiously as practical. In this case, South Dakota noted
in its response to a similar comment in Appendix E of the SIP that
since a dry FGD system must be located upstream of the particulate
control device, that demonstrating compliance with the SO2
BART limit affects the compliance demonstration for PM. The commenter
does not provide any explanation to refute South Dakota's response. We
find South Dakota's compliance timeframe is reasonable as noted in
Section 6.4 of the SIP for installation and operation of BART as
expeditiously as practical, but no later than five years from EPA's
approval of the South Dakota Regional Haze Program.

E. Startup, Shutdown and Enforceability Comments

Comment: One commenter stated that DENR should not exempt Big Stone
from BART emission limits during startup and shutdown. First, BART
emission limits must be met on a continuous basis pursuant to CAA
section 302(k). Second, startup and shutdown are part of normal
operations at facilities like Big Stone, and because these emissions
impact visibility and regional haze, ``DENR's proposed BART limits must
include periods of startup and shutdown.'' Third, permitting
authorities have required as stringent and more stringent BACT limits
at coal-fired boilers without allowing exemptions for startup and
shutdown. Further, the commenter stated that Otter Tail did not request
exemptions from emission limits for startup and shutdown related to a
new facility, Big Stone II, for which it was seeking a permit during a
2008 contested case hearing.
Response: As stated in the proposal, all the BART limits (based on
lb/MMBtu, 30-day rolling average) specified in the South Dakota
Regional Haze SIP apply at all times, including periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction. The lb/MMBtu limits are more restrictive than
the lb/hr limits that are also specified in the SIP, and therefore, as
a practical matter, the lb/MMBtu limits take precedence.
Comment: One commenter stated that DENR's proposed regulation to
make the BART requirements from the Regional Haze SIP enforceable
(74:36:21:06-09) fails to specify that Big Stone is subject to the
regulation's emission limits. The regulation must specify the source
that is subject to the BART emission limits to ensure that those limits
are enforceable.
Response: We disagree. Though somewhat unique in its omission of
the facility name, we find that the State's regulation provides
adequate detail to ensure its applicability and enforceability related
to Big Stone I. We are deferring to the State's constitution and
legislative process that favors general laws over special, unit-
specific laws. We are basing our approval of South Dakota's Regional
Haze SIP on the conclusion that the regulation does cover Big Stone I.

F. Modeling Comments

Comment: One commenter stated that both the cumulative visibility
impact of a source's emissions and the cumulative benefit of emission
reductions are necessary considerations as part of the fifth step in a
BART analysis. The commenter stated that this is particularly important
for sources in South Dakota because emissions from these sources cause
or contribute to visibility impairment at multiple Class I areas. The
commenter supported an argument from an NPS comment letter which
states:

``It simply does not make sense to use the same metric to
evaluate the effects of reducing emissions from a BART source that
impacts only the one Class I area as for a BART source that impacts
multiple Class I areas.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ NPS comments on Salt River Project's proposed determination
for Navajo Generating Station, July 24, 2009, according to
commenter.

The commenter provided examples of instances in which consideration of
cumulative visibility benefits influenced BART decisions, one being EPA
Region 6's FIP for the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico. The
commenter

[[Page 24850]]

also stated that FLMs rely on cumulative assessments of visibility
impacts and benefits to determine the levels of emission controls that
are cost-effective and technically feasible. Additionally, the
commenter stated that cumulative impact assessments also provide more
accurate depictions of costs on a dollars per deciview basis, which is
a useful supplement to the $/ton calculation used in BART
determinations.
Response: The BART Guidelines list the dollars per deciview ratio
as an additional cost effectiveness metric that can be employed along
with $/ton for use in a BART evaluation. However, EPA does not have
guidelines on how the dollars per deciview metric is to be used. South
Dakota did include a dollars per deciview metric across multiple Class
I areas in its evaluation of BART controls based on the combinations of
controls for which Otter Tail conducted visibility modeling.\12\ The
dollars per deciview analysis indicated the control options that
reduced visibility impacts to acceptable levels had comparable dollars
per deciview results, within approximately 10 percent of each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ See SIP Table 6-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While we agree with the commenter that the cumulative visibility
impact across multiple Class I areas is a useful metric that can
further inform the BART determination, states can choose how they
compile this information. We find that South Dakota's evaluation of
visibility impacts is consistent with the BART guidelines and a
sufficient basis for choosing control options.

G. GCC Dacotah Cement Comments

Comment: Several commenters stated that technical feasibility was
not the basis for South Dakota's decision to eliminate SNCR in its 2003
NOX BACT determination for GCC Dacotah Kiln 6.
Commenters pointed to the ``Statement of Basis'' in support of GCC
Dacotah's 2003 PSD permit, in which DENR considered SNCR to be
technically feasible for Kiln 6, but rejected SNCR as BACT due
to concerns about accidental release of ammonia and ammonia slip. The
NPS provided excerpts from its comments on the 2003 PSD permit in
support of the NPS's comments on this action.
Response: We are not basing our final approval of South Dakota's
regional haze SIP with regard to GCC Dacotah Kiln 6 on the
basis of any general statements about technical feasibility of SNCR. We
are basing it in part on analysis and information from South Dakota's
2003 BACT determination, which South Dakota relied on in regard to Kiln
6, and information subsequently provided by South Dakota. In
order to clarify the situation and to respond to other comments on Kiln
6, we provide additional detail on the 2003 PSD permit. We
explain in response to other comments our assessment of South Dakota's
reliance on the 2003 BACT determination for Kiln 6.
On June 23, 1994, Dacotah Cement (the previous owner and operator
of the facility) submitted an application to South Dakota DENR for a
modification to Kiln 6.\13\ Based on information in the
application, South Dakota agreed that the modification was not major
under the PSD program, and the modification was completed. However,
South Dakota later determined that, based on the result of subsequent
stack tests, the modification should have triggered PSD review. South
Dakota entered into a settlement agreement with Dacotah Cement. GCC
Dacotah purchased the facility and submitted applications for PSD
permits for PM, NOX, and carbon monoxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ South Dakota DENR, Statement of Basis, PSD Preconstruction
Permit (``2003 PSD Permit SOB''), p. 1 (Apr. 10, 2003). The 2003
permit files are available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In its permit application, GCC Dacotah presented a five-step BACT
analysis for NOX controls for Kiln 6. In the first
step, GCC Dacotah presented SNCR as an available technology, and, in
the second step, did not eliminate SNCR (standing alone) as technically
infeasible. Among other control options, the company also presented
staged combustion, in the form of an inline, low-NOX
calciner with riser duct firing, and low NOX burners (LNBs)
with indirect firing, as available and feasible. However, in
considering combinations of control technologies, GCC Dacotah stated
that SNCR was technically infeasible in combination with the proposed
staged combustion system, for reasons including requirements for an
injection location with temperatures between 1600 [deg]F and 2000
[deg]F. The company stated that, due to these reasons, use of SNCR with
the proposed staged combustion system would have a high probability of
ammonia slip and resulting detached plume.
In its statement of basis for the draft permit, South Dakota
likewise presented SNCR, standing alone, as an available and
technically feasible option for Kiln 6. However, South Dakota
stated that accidental release of ammonia during handling and storage
was an environmental risk. South Dakota also stated that ammonia slip
could result in increased PM10 and PM2.5
emissions, South Dakota viewed this as a concern in Rapid City. Based
on these reasons, South Dakota stated ``SNCR is not considered an
appropriate control device for [NOX] in Rapid City.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Id., pp. 23-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the statement of basis for the draft permit, South Dakota also
considered staged combustion as an option. GCC Dacotah proposed a
staged combustion system with a small pre-calciner, with a cost-
effectiveness of $3,888 per ton of NOX removed. GCC Dacotah
initially did not provide costs for a large pre-calciner. South Dakota
agreed with the cost-effectiveness for the small pre-calciner. South
Dakota also stated that the large pre-calciner would not be
economically or physically feasible, as the existing support structure
and equipment location would not accommodate it. Based on review of the
RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC), South Dakota proposed as BACT the
controls presented by GCC Dacotah, including the staged combustion
system with the small pre-calciner.
As noted by the NPS in its comments on this action, the NPS
provided comments on the draft PSD permit, including the rejection of
SNCR for Kiln 6. The NPS argued that South Dakota should
reconsider its decision to eliminate SNCR, in light of the requirement
for SNCR in a permit for a cement kiln at Continental Cement in
Missouri. The NPS also argued that the cost-effectiveness of a large
pre-calciner should be assessed in order to determine whether it might
be BACT.
In response to the NPS comments, South Dakota reiterated its
concerns with accidental release of ammonia and ammonia slip. In
addition, South Dakota noted that the permit for the Continental Cement
kiln required the replacement of an existing kiln, thereby reducing
NOX and avoiding PSD review. South Dakota also noted that
the NOX emissions limit of 8 lbs/ton of clinker for the
Continental Cement kiln was higher than the emissions limit for GCC
Dacotah Kiln 6 established in the PSD permit. Finally, based
on a cost analysis South Dakota requested from GCC Dacotah, South
Dakota stated that the cost-effectiveness of the large pre-calciner
would be $5,100 per ton of NOX removed, which South Dakota
considered excessive. South Dakota, therefore, finalized its
determination that staged combustion with the small pre-calciner was
BACT for Kiln 6.
On October 11, 2011, South Dakota provided the email included in
the docket in response to our questions

[[Page 24851]]

regarding the 2003 BACT determination and why SNCR was eliminated. The
email stated that, in 2003, South Dakota determined that SNCR was not
technically feasible for use with the controls (including the small
pre-calciner) selected as BACT for Kiln 6. (The email did not
state that SNCR standing alone had been considered technically
infeasible.) South Dakota explained that it had determined that the
small pre-calciner lacked an appropriate location for use of SNCR, and
that use of it in the small pre-calciner would cause ammonia slip.
South Dakota stated that the large pre-calciner ``may'' have had an
appropriate location for use of SNCR; the State also noted, however,
that the large pre-calciner had been considered to have excessive
costs.
We reiterate that we are basing our final action on information and
analyses in the 2003 BACT determination, together with emissions data
provided by South Dakota and South Dakota's statements that, at this
facility, site-specific considerations prevent the effective use of
SNCR in Kiln 6 without significant process modifications. We
are not basing our final action on any general statement on technical
feasibility of SNCR. We provide this response in order to clarify the
record.
Comment: The NPS disagreed with ``EPA's and DENR's reliance on a
2003 * * * PSD permit review for Dacotah Cement Kiln 6 to
determine that post-combustion controls were not technically
feasible.'' First, the NPS stated that it is inconsistent for DENR, in
analyzing the Pete Lien and Sons lime plant, to review the RBLC to
determine whether more stringent post-combustion controls had been
permitted since a 2008 PSD decision on that facility, and not review
more recent permit requirements after the 2003 PSD decision for Kiln
6. Second, the two commenters questioned EPA's statement that
the 2003 BACT determination for Dacotah's PSD permit is ``recent.''
Finally, the NPS cited EPA's BART Guidelines which state ``all
technologies should be considered if available before the close of the
State's public comment period.'' The NPS stated, and provided
documentation in support of its statement, that SNCR application to
preheater/precalciner kilns such as Dacotah's Kiln 6 has
evolved from ``questionable'' to ``well established'' from the 2003
BACT determination and the close of the State's first Regional Haze SIP
public comment period in 2010.
Response: As discussed elsewhere, we are not basing our final
action on whether SNCR is available or technically feasible for Kiln
6. We are basing our final action on information and analyses
in the 2003 BACT determination, together with South Dakota's statements
that, at this facility, site-specific considerations prevent the
effective use of SNCR in Kiln 6 without significant process
modifications. These site-specific considerations have not changed
since 2003, and subsequent developments regarding applicability of SNCR
to other preheater/precalciner kilns also do not change this.
With regard to South Dakota's four-factor review of Pete Lien and
Sons, it appears that the State's review of the RBLC was not the sole
basis for the State's decision. The State also modeled baseline
visibility impacts of the facility (as it did for GCC Dacotah Kilns
4 and 5 and Ben French). The modeling showed impacts
from 0.05 to 0.07 deciviews at Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks.
In any case, under the BART guidelines (if used for reasonable progress
(RP) determinations), review of the RBLC would be recommended to
identify available technologies. As discussed above, in the 2003 PSD
permit, the State treated SNCR, standing alone, as available and
technically feasible for GCC Dacotah Kiln 6, and did not
eliminate SNCR as unavailable based on its review of the RBLC at that
time. A present-day review of the RBLC would not change this. Thus,
South Dakota's use of the RBLC in analyzing the Pete Lien and Sons
facility does not give any basis for us to change our proposed
approval. Similarly, because South Dakota treated SNCR as available in
the 2003 BACT determination, the comments relating to the BART
guidelines on determining availability and to subsequent application of
SNCR to preheater/precalciner kilns do not give us any basis to change
our proposed approval.
Comment: Two commenters disagreed with the statement in EPA's
proposed action that ``In issuing the PSD permit in 2003 * * * South
Dakota found that SNCR was not technically feasible for Kiln 6.''
Further, these commenters stated that the concerns about ammonia slip
are predictable and solvable in this context, and that there is no
reason to believe that the accidental release of ammonia slip would be
any more of a problem at GCC Dacotah than at the numerous other
facilities cited by the commenter successfully using ammonia in the
operation of SNCR and SCR. Ammonia slip is typically managed by system
design and operating parameters, and it likely should have been applied
in the 2003 BACT determination, and there is no reason to delay
analysis of SNCR and other feasible technologies until 2018. One
commenter stated that the failure to require adequate emission controls
lacks legal justification.
Response: We disagree with the comments to the extent that they
conclude that we must disapprove the South Dakota Regional Haze SIP
with respect to GCC Dacotah Kiln 6. As detailed above, in its
2002 PSD permit application, GCC Dacotah presented SNCR both as a
stand-alone control option and in combination with the staged
combustion system, including the small pre-calciner. While the State's
basis for rejecting SNCR, standing alone, in 2003 may have been solely
concerns with accidental release of ammonia and ammonia slip, the
information and analyses in the 2003 BACT determination with regard to
SNCR in combination with the staged combustion system provide a
sufficient basis, viewed today, so that we are not prepared to find
that South Dakota was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT
determination when considering Kiln 6. In evaluating SNCR now,
it must be considered as applied to the existing design, i.e., a staged
combustion system, including the small pre-calciner.
As represented by South Dakota in its October 11, 2011 email, at
this facility site-specific considerations prevent the effective use of
SNCR in Kiln 6 without significant process modifications.\15\
Among the considerations presented by the State is a requirement for a
location with temperatures from 1600 [deg] to 2000 [deg].\16\ South
Dakota states that the existing design, including the staged combustion
system with the small pre-calciner, does not provide an adequate
location for use of SNCR. South Dakota also states that the same
system, but with a large pre-calciner, ``may have had an appropriate
location.'' The State notes (as we have mentioned above) that a staged
combustion system with a large pre-calciner was rejected in 2003 as
BACT due to excessive costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ We note that these considerations were also presented in
the 2002 GCC Dacotah PSD permit application, in the portion
discussing SNCR in combination with the staged combustion system,
including the small pre-calciner.
\16\ See also US EPA, Alternative Control Techniques Document
Update -NOX Emissions from New Cement Kilns, EPA-453/R-
07-006, Fig. 8-1 (Nov. 2007). Note that, based on this figure, at
1400 [deg]F, NOX reduction efficiency is at most 10%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the above statements regarding appropriate locations for
SNCR, emissions data provided by DENR, and the limited information and
analyses in the 2003 BACT determination, we note the following.\17\

[[Page 24852]]

First, based on the emissions data provided by South Dakota, the
existing controls, including the staged combustion system with the
small pre-calciner, achieve approximately 44% reduction of
NOX emissions. Second, based on GCC Dacotah's estimated
costs in 2003 for a large pre-calciner, the cost-effectiveness of
replacing the small pre-calciner with a large pre-calciner alone would
be (in 2011 dollars) $6,164 per ton of NOX removed, not
including the costs of removing the small pre-calciner and associated
equipment. Based on the emissions data, the incremental cost-
effectiveness, as compared with the existing controls, would be (in
2011 dollars) $280,246 per ton of NOX removed. Third, based
on the above statements by South Dakota regarding appropriate locations
for SNCR, the cost effectiveness of replacing the existing small pre-
calciner with a large pre-calciner and installing SNCR would be (in
2011 dollars) $4,348 per ton of NOX removed, again not
including the costs of removing the small pre-calciner and associated
equipment. Again, based on the emissions data, the incremental cost-
effectiveness, as compared with the existing controls, would be (in
2011 dollars) $20,160 per ton of NOX removed. The cost
estimates for SNCR are conservative, as we use a control efficiency of
50%. Given these costs, we are not prepared to find that South Dakota
was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT determination and not
requiring additional NOX controls for Kiln 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The details of these calculations are provided in a
memorandum in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the comment that a failure to require adequate emission controls
lacks legal justification, other than issues we have responded to
elsewhere, the commenter did not provide sufficient detail of any
deficiency in our action.
Comment: The NPS stated that SNCR is a feasible option for cement
kilns. The NPS cited the BART Guidelines explanations of ``available''
and ``applicable'' technology, a report by the Portland Cement
Association, as well as other EPA documents to argue that SNCR has
become routinely applied to preheater/precalciner cement kilns since
South Dakota's 2003 BACT determination. The NPS also stated that it
found three entries for Portland cement plants in the RBLC, all of
which were preheater/precalciners and all of which included SNCR to
reduce NOX to approximately half the rate allowed by DENR.
Response: As discussed above, at the time of the 2003 BACT
determination, South Dakota considered SNCR as an available and
feasible technology for GCC Dacotah Kiln 6. However, given the
current configuration of Kiln 6, South Dakota's position (as
discussed above) is that site-specific considerations prevent the
effective use of SNCR in Kiln 6 without significant process
modifications. The citation to the RBLC and the other documents does
not convince us that SNCR is routinely applied to existing preheater/
precalciner kilns, regardless of site-specific consideration such as
the current design. Thus, the comments do not give us any basis to find
that the State was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT
determination for Kiln 6.
Comment: In reference to EPA's proposed action, which states
``South Dakota declined to conduct a four-factor analysis for GCC
Dacotah Kiln 6,'' The NPS asserted that a state cannot simply decline
without good reason and an explanation for the public record. The NPS
stated that DENR's email to EPA Region 8 does not satisfy the BART
Guidelines, which state, ``if you disagree with public comments
asserting that the technology is available, you should provide an
explanation for the public record as to the basis for your
conclusion.'' The NPS does not believe this portion of the BART
Guidelines is satisfied ``because it was not made part of DENR's public
record and appears to simply be a re-statement of DENR's outdated 2003
BACT determination.''
Response: We disagree. We noted in our proposal that the State
relied on the 2003 BACT determination instead of conducting a four-
factor analysis for Kiln 6. We discuss the State's response to
comments on SNCR for Kiln 6 elsewhere.
There are two critical principles expressed in our BART guidelines
that are equally relevant to an RP determination. First, as part of a
BART analysis, technically infeasible control options are eliminated
from further review. For BART, EPA's criteria for determining whether a
control option is technically infeasible are substantially the same as
the criteria used for determining technical infeasibility in the BACT
context. 70 FR 39165; EPA's ``New Source Review Workshop Manual,''
pages B.17-B.22. Second, states may often be able to rely on a recent
BACT determination for a source for purposes of determining BART for
that source, unless new technologies have become available or best
control levels for recent retrofits have become more stringent. As a
general rule, the selection of a recent BACT level as BART is the
equivalent of selecting the most stringent level of control, and
consideration of the five statutory BART factors becomes unnecessary.
Given the overlap of the four statutory RP factors with the five
statutory BART factors, we think the same principle applies to RP
determinations.
Furthermore, as discussed in more detail elsewhere, in this case it
is not just the selection of BACT in the 2003 PSD permit proceeding
that the State relies on, it is specific information from that BACT
determination that is relevant to application of SNCR to Kiln
6 as it exists now. Independently of the selection of BACT in
2003, that information (as explained elsewhere) and South Dakota's
statements regarding site-specific considerations sufficiently explain
the State's action so that EPA is not prepared to determine that South
Dakota was unreasonable.
Comment: The NPCA stated that SNCR ``likely should have'' been
determined to be BACT in the 2003 PSD permit proceeding.
Response: The NPCA does not identify any flaw in the 2003 BACT
determination, and none in particular in the information and analyses
in that determination on which we rely. Thus, the comment does not give
us any basis to change our proposed action.
Comment: The NPCA stated that, should the proposed rate of progress
continue, South Dakota's reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for natural
visibility at Wind Cave and Badlands national parks are, respectively,
172 years and 201 years after the target date of 2064. The NPCA stated
that the uniform rate of progress (URP) will ``egregiously'' not be
met, and that the State must therefore analyze and require RP for BART
and non-BART sources alike based on the statutory factors. EPA is also
required to evaluate the State's RPGs based on the four statutory
factors.\18\ The NPS cited EPA Region 8's proposed rulemaking for North
Dakota's Regional Haze SIP to reiterate that South Dakota must
demonstrate why its RPGs and rejection of RP controls are
reasonable.\19\ The NPCA, therefore, stated that South Dakota and EPA
erroneously declined to analyze and require controls for GCC Dacotah,
which qualifies as ``any potentially affected source'' and
``contributes significantly to visibility impairment at its Class I
areas.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iii).
\19\ 76 FR 183. ``Because the reasonable progress goals fall
short of the uniform rate of progress, North Dakota must demonstrate
that its reasonable progress goals and rejection of reasonable
progress controls is reasonable, based on the four factors. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(ii).''
\20\ Commenter's repeated claim that visibility impacts from
Kiln 6 are ``significant'' appears to have been
extrapolated by a comparison of the combined impacts from Kilns
4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: With respect to BART sources, generally a source-specific
BART determination is equivalent to a

[[Page 24853]]

source-specific RP determination. As we are approving South Dakota's
BART determination for Big Stone, RP requirements for that source are
satisfied. With respect to the RP sources, and GCC Dacotah Kilns
4 and 5 in particular, we find South Dakota's RP
determinations reasonable. We also explain above the specific
information and analyses in the 2003 BACT determination for Kiln
6 that sufficiently support South Dakota's action so we are
not prepared to find it unreasonable. The commenters did not identify
any deficiencies in South Dakota's RP determinations for other
potentially affected sources, or (aside from comments specifically on
GCC Dacotah) in the reasons given in our proposal for why South
Dakota's RPGs were reasonable. The comments therefore give no basis for
us to change our proposed action.
Comment: The NPS stated that, if Q/D \21\ were calculated for GCC
Dacotah's Kiln 6, its value of 48 would be double that of the
next highest evaluated source (Ben French power plant), and more than
double the combined value of GCC Dacotah's Kilns 4 and 5. The
NPS therefore believed that Kiln 6 is the most significant of
the sources that should have been evaluated under the RP provisions of
the Regional Haze Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ EPA calculated Q/D as follows: The total emissions
(SO2 + NOX) in tons per year for a source
divided by the source's distance in kilometers to the nearest Class
I Federal area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: For reasons explained elsewhere, we are not prepared to
find that South Dakota was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT
determination to meet the requirements of the Regional Haze rule with
respect to GCC Dacotah Kiln 6. This is true regardless of the
value of Q/D for Kiln 6 alone.
Comment: The NPS stated that it is incorrect for EPA to conclude
that the visibility benefits from GCC Dacotah would be small. Because
Kiln 6 wasn't modeled, the NPS noted it is inappropriate to
conclude that the modeled benefits are small because the analysis of
those benefits (including specifically the benefits of adding SNCR to
Kiln 6) is incomplete. The NPS further stated that it is
reasonable to conclude that, if emissions from Kiln 6 were
modeled, they might show that Kiln 6 is a significant
contributor to visibility impairment. For this reason, the commenter
stated that EPA is incorrect in stating that South Dakota based its
determination for Kiln 6 on visibility benefits rather than on
a four factor analysis.
Response: We agree that the State did not provide visibility
modeling, either of baseline impacts or of benefits, for Kiln
6, and did not base its decision regarding Kiln 6 on
visibility modeling. In assessing South Dakota's submittal, we did note
that South Dakota modeled baseline impacts for Kilns 4 and
5 combined and relied on that data, and, in contrast, for Kiln
6 we noted instead that South Dakota relied on the 2003 BACT
determination. (See 76 FR 76665.) For the reasons discussed elsewhere,
we are not prepared to find that reliance unreasonable.
Comment: The NPS stated that, in this action, EPA is considering
any cost excessive because of its assumption that visibility benefits
would be minimal. The NPS contrasted this action with EPA statements
from other actions regarding cost effectiveness. The NPS stated that if
EPA bases its decision that lack of visibility benefits trumps a four-
factor analysis for a situation in which URP is far from being met, it
should ``conduct a valid modeling analysis to estimate the actual
benefits on which it is basing its decision.'' The NPS stated that this
analysis should be related to the $18 million per deciview average for
NOX control costs, which the NPS stated has become the
``national norm.'' The NPS referred to Colorado's Holcim Cement plant,
a potentially affected source for which Colorado is requiring SNCR for
RP. The NPS argued that GCC Dacotah Cement's total visibility impact
would have been similar or greater than that of Holcim Cement in
Colorado, had Kiln 6 been included in GCC Dacotah's modeling.
The NPS argued that GCC Dacotah Cement should not be given a
competitive advantage over other cement facilities that are also
subject to the Regional Haze program requirements.
Response: As a general matter, the Regional Haze rule does not
impose uniform numeric standards, such as specific cost effectiveness
or visibility benefit levels, that a State is required to use in
determining whether a control should be imposed at a potentially
affected source for RP. Instead, consistent with the CAA, the rule
requires the State to consider certain factors in determining RP. If
the State's selected controls do not achieve the URP, the State is
required to demonstrate that the State's choice was reasonable and that
it was unreasonable to meet the URP.
In our review of a state's RP determination for a potentially
affected source, it is our task to determine that the state reasonably
considered the relevant factors. Thus, in approving South Dakota's RP
determination for Kilns 4 and 5, we are not stating a
principle that EPA considers any cost excessive when the visibility
benefits are minimal, or are below some threshold. Instead, we are
finding that the State considered the factors set out in the CAA and
reached a result that we are not prepared to say is unreasonable. We
also do not find it unreasonable for a state to rely on baseline
visibility impacts to assess potential controls. While modeling of the
reductions from controls could give a more precise measure of
visibility benefits, baseline visibility impacts do bear a rational
relation to visibility benefits. At a minimum, visibility benefits are
bounded by baseline visibility impacts.
Furthermore, what is reasonable is subject to a certain amount of
variation from state to state, from facility to facility, and from
location to location.\22\ EPA, therefore, rejects the notion that the
reasonableness of a state's RP determination should be assessed against
a ``national norm'' based on dollars per deciview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ For example, in one notice cited by NPS, we stated that a
cost effectiveness value was ``well within the range of values we
have considered reasonable for BART and that states other than North
Dakota have considered cost effective.'' 76 FR 58570 (Sept. 21,
2011) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA also rejects the comparison of South Dakota's determination to
not impose SNCR at Kiln 6 with Colorado's determination to
impose SNCR at the Holcim Florence facility. The details show the
facilities are not similar. In its RP determination for the Holcim
Florence facility, Colorado noted that the existing design of the
facility, in particular the preheater/precalciner vessels, provided
locations with appropriate temperatures for injection of ammonia.
Colorado therefore considered SNCR to be technically and economically
feasible, and derived a cost effectiveness of $2,293 per ton of
NOX removed for SNCR.\23\ In contrast, South Dakota states
that the existing design of Kiln 6 does not provide
appropriate locations for use of SNCR; in other words, that an
effective installation of SNCR would require significant process
modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Colorado Regional Haze SIP, Appendix D, Reasonable Progress
(RP) Four-Factor Analysis of Control Options for Holcim Portland
Plant, Florence, Colorado, p. 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: The NPS stated that DENR and EPA should explain why the
cost estimates for SNCR at Kilns 4 and 5 were so much
higher than average. Commenter also stated that DENR used EPA's Nov.
2007 ``Alternative Control Techniques Document Update--NOX
Emissions from New Cement Kilns'' to

[[Page 24854]]

estimate the cost of an SNCR system, though this document was developed
for the review of dry kilns and not a wet kiln.
Response: The State provided its explanation for its derivation of
costs for SNCR.\24\ In discussing its derivation of costs, South Dakota
recognized that EPA's November 2007 document was developed for dry
kilns. South Dakota stated that SNCR had only been used on wet kilns in
Europe and recently on one wet kiln in the United States. Regardless,
by any methodology, the cost-effectiveness of SNCR would likely be
higher than that for LNB, while, based on estimates by the State on
which the NPS did not comment, both SNCR and LNB would have the same
control efficiency of 30 to 40%. As explained elsewhere, we are not
prepared to find that South Dakota was unreasonable in relying on
baseline visibility impacts for Kilns 4 and 5 in
determining that LNB (or any other cost-effective controls) were not
reasonable. Given that and the higher likely cost-effectiveness of SNCR
for the same reductions as LNB, the reasons given in our responses for
Kiln 6 apply with equal force to SNCR for Kilns 4 and
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ South Dakota Regional Haze SIP, Table 7-2, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: The NPS stated that South Dakota rejected the results of
the four-factor analyses which show additional controls are reasonable
on GCC Dacotah Cement Kilns 4 and 5. The NPS asserted
that EPA ``should conduct a valid four-factor analysis (which includes
an up-to-date review of SNCR) for all three kilns at GCC Dacotah
Cement.''
Response: In this action, it is not EPA's task in the first
instance to independently conduct its own analysis of the four
statutory RP factors. As discussed above, it is EPA's task to review
South Dakota's determination. With regard to GCC Dacotah Kiln
6, EPA is not prepared to find that South Dakota was
unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT determination with regard to
GCC Dacotah Kiln 6. With regard to Kilns 4 and
5, South Dakota considered the four statutory RP factors.
South Dakota then considered the baseline visibility impacts of Kilns
4 and 5 combined and decided not to impose controls.
EPA is not prepared to find that South Dakota was unreasonable in that
decision.
Comment: The NPS stated that GCC Dacotah Kiln 6 should not
be allowed to operate until 2018 and beyond ``without current state-of-
the-art emission controls, or even any evaluation of its emission
controls, while it continues to affect visibility at Wind Cave and
Badlands national parks.''
Response: RP does not per se require use of the most current
emission controls. As discussed elsewhere, various potential controls
were evaluated in the State's 2003 BACT determination for Kiln
6. We, therefore, disagree with the statements to the extent
that they argue we are compelled to disapprove the State's Regional
Haze SIP with regard to GCC Dacotah Kiln 6.
Comment: The NPS stated that, on August 17, 2011, it commented to
DENR that the RP analysis should evaluate controls for Kiln 6
and that the NPS believes now, as it did in commenting on the 2003 PSD
permit, that SNCR is a feasible option for cement kilns. The NPS stated
a response to this comment should have been made available in the DENR
public records, and that DENR has not met the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(i)(3) to ``provide in its Regional Haze SIP a description of how
it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs.''
Response: To assess South Dakota's response to the NPS's comments,
it is useful to discuss the history of the development of the South
Dakota Regional Haze SIP. On January 15, 2010, the State provided a
draft SIP to the FLMs for consultation. The NPS commented generally
that the SIP was lacking four-factor analyses of potentially affected
sources for RP. The EPA also made specific suggestions regarding which
facilities, at a minimum, seemed to warrant four-factor analyses under
RP.
On August 23, 2010, South Dakota provided a draft SIP for public
comment. This draft also did not include four-factor analyses of
potentially affected sources. The NPS did not comment (nor was it
required to) on the issue; the EPA commented that the SIP should
contain the four-factor analyses and again suggested several
facilities, at a minimum, to be analyzed.
On January 21, 2011, South Dakota promulgated a final Regional Haze
SIP. This version included four-factor analyses of some potentially
affected sources for RP including GCC Dacotah Kilns 4 and
5. The SIP included responses to both FLM and public comments.
However, the State subsequently amended the SIP to, among other
things, evaluate an additional control technology, SNCR, at Kilns
4 and 5. As a result, South Dakota provided a draft
amended SIP on September 19, 2011. During the public comment period,
the NPS commented on Kiln 6 as the NPS has stated above. The
State presented the issue of SNCR for Kiln 6 to the South
Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment at a hearing on August 18,
2011. South Dakota stated its reasons for relying on the 2003 BACT
determination to reject SNCR as a possible control for Kiln 6
for RP.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ The audio of the August 18, 2011 hearing is available on
the Board's Web site: https://denr.sd.gov/boards/2011/2011sche.aspx.
We have placed a transcript of the relevant portions in the docket
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given these particular circumstances, we think that South Dakota
has sufficiently met the requirements for FLM coordination and response
to comments with regard to regional haze requirements for Kiln
6.

H. General Comments

Comment: The NPCA stated that South Dakota's SIP is inconsistent in
that it requires adequate controls for certain facilities and not
others. The commenter urged EPA to require additional emission
reductions from South Dakota sources, mirroring the significant
reductions being required in other States and for other sources
throughout the country. The commenter referenced other actions in
Region 6 and Region 8 as examples.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Federal Implementation Plans for the San Juan Generating
Station in New Mexico (76 FR 52388) and Oklahoma (76 FR 81727) and
the proposed Federal Implementation Plan for North Dakota (76 FR
58570).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: We took into consideration South Dakota's analyses based
on the statutory factors and determined that these analyses, and the
control selections they support, were satisfactory to meet the regional
haze requirements in this planning period. The State imposed stringent
levels of control on its one BART source, Big Stone I, and provided
sufficient justification based on its case-by-case analysis for
emission limits at this source that are slightly above some of the
examples cited by commenters. We also continue to find that, for GCC
Dacotah under RP that the State provided sufficient basis for its
reliance on its 2003 BACT determination as described elsewhere in our
responses. Finally, as explained in the context of RP determinations in
our responses elsewhere in this action, the Regional Haze Rule does not
impose uniform numeric standards across States for emissions
reductions. Therefore, the examples cited by NPCA are of limited
utility.
Comment: One commenter stated that national parks and wilderness
areas boost their area economies. Specifically, commenter cited 2010
visitation

[[Page 24855]]

statistics for Badlands National Park (977,778) and Wind Cave National
Park (577,141), and noted that similar visitation in 2009 resulted in
$61 million in spending and over 1,000 jobs. The commenter stated that
reduction in visibility could result in decreased visits to Class I
areas. The commenter also stated that installation of pollution control
technologies is a job-creating mechanism.
Response: We agree with the comment. Although we did not consider
the potential positive benefits to the local and national economies in
making our decision today, we do expect that improved visibility would
have a positive impact on tourism-dependent local economies. Also, some
of these retrofits will create construction projects that we expect may
take several years to complete, and will require well-paid, skilled
labor which can potentially be drawn from the local area, which may
benefit the economy.
Comment: One commenter stated that haze pollution significantly
impacts human and ecosystem health. Specifically, the commenter
asserted that haze pollution contributes to heart attacks, asthma
attacks, chronic bronchitis and respiratory illness, increased hospital
admissions, lost work and school days, and even premature death. The
commenter also noted the specific haze pollutants NOX,
SO2 and PM, which the commenter stated are all harmful to
the human body.
The commenter also stated that haze pollution negatively impacts
ecosystem health. The commenter specifically expressed concern for the
effects of haze pollution on waterways, soils, plants and wildlife.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns regarding the
negative health impacts of emissions from facilities in South Dakota.
We agree that the same PM2.5 emissions that cause visibility
impairment can be inhaled deep into lungs, which can cause respiratory
problems, decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, bronchitis, and
premature death. We also agree that the same NOX emissions
that cause visibility impairment also contribute to the formation of
ground-level ozone, which has been linked with respiratory problems,
aggravated asthma, and even permanent lung damage. We agree that these
pollutants can have negative impacts on plants and ecosystems, damaging
plants, trees and other vegetation, and reducing forest growth and crop
yields, which could have a negative effect on species diversity in
ecosystems. However, for purposes of this action, we are not authorized
to consider these impacts in evaluating the reasonableness of South
Dakota's Regional Haze SIP, and we have not done so.
Comment: The environmental advocacy group CREDO Action submitted
comments from 225 individuals. Many of these comments were identical,
and most if not all generally requested that EPA strengthen our
proposal, specifically at Big Stone I and GCC Dacotah Cement.
Response: EPA appreciates the comments, but is approving South
Dakota's Regional Haze SIP as proposed for the reasons stated in the
proposal and in previous responses to comments in this action.
Comment: South Dakota DENR stated that it believes the South Dakota
Regional Haze SIP will improve visibility in the State's parks and
provide improved visitor experience, and commends those involved in
developing the SIP.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter.

III. Final Action

EPA is taking final action to approve the State of South Dakota's
Regional Haze SIP, submitted by the State on January 21, 2011, along
with an amendment submitted on September 19, 2011. EPA finds that the
South Dakota Regional Haze SIP submittal meets all of the applicable
regional haze requirements set forth in section 169A and 169B of the
Act and in the Federal regulations codified at 40 CFR 51.300-308, and
the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart F and appendix V.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,

[[Page 24856]]

the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 25, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: March 29, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart QQ--South Dakota

0
2. In Sec. 52.2170 the table in paragraph (c)(1) is amended by adding
a new section, 74:36:21 Regional Haze Program, in numerical order and
the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding entries for XII. South
Dakota Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, and XIII. South Dakota
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, Amendment, in numerical order.
The amendments read as follows:

Sec. 52.2170 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA approval date and
State citation Title/subject effective date citation \1\ Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:21 Regional Haze Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:21:01............... Applicability........ 12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert
Federal Register page
number where the
document begins.]
74:36:21:02............... Definitions.......... 9/19/11 4/26/12, [Insert
Federal Register page
number where the
document begins.]
74:36:21:03............... Existing stationary 12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert
facility defined. Federal Register page
number where the
document begins.]
74:36:21:04............... Visibility impact 12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert
analysis. Federal Register page
number where the
document begins.]
74:36:21:05............... BART determination... 12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert
Federal Register page
number where the
document begins.]
74:36:21:06............... BART determination 9/19/11 4/26/12, [Insert
for a BART-eligible Federal Register page
coal-fired power number where the
plant. document begins.]
74:36:21:07............... Installation of 12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert
controls based on Federal Register page
visibility impact number where the
analysis or BART document begins.]
determination.
74:36:21:08............... Operation and 12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert
maintenance of Federal Register page
controls. number where the
document begins.]
74:36:21:09............... Monitoring, 9/19/11 4/26/12, [Insert
recordkeeping, and Federal Register page
reporting. number where the
document begins.]
74:36:21:10............... Permit to construct.. 12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert
Federal Register page
number where the
document begins.]
74:36:21:11............... Permit required for 12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert
BART determination. Federal Register page
number where the
document begins.]
74:36:21:12............... Federal land manager 12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert
notification and Federal Register page
review. number where the
document begins.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

* * * * *
(e) * * *

[[Page 24857]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or State submittal EPA approval date Explanations
provision nonattainment area date/adopted date and citation \5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
XII. South Dakota Regional Haze Statewide......... Submitted: 1/21/11 4/26/12, [Insert Excluding portions
State Implementation Plan. Federal Register of the following:
page number where Sections 7.2,
the document 7.3, 7.4, and 8.5
begins.] because these
provisions were
superseded by a
later submittal.
XIII. South Dakota Regional Haze Statewide......... Submitted: 9/19/11 4/26/12, [Insert Including only
State Implementation Plan, Federal Register portions of the
Amendment. page number where following:
the document Sections 7.2,
begins.] 7.3, 7.4, and
8.5; excluding
all other
portions of the
submittal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

[FR Doc. 2012-8988 Filed 4-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.